Chapter 2: What Pres Hysteria Obama could learn from the very confident Pres Reagan!

As we recover from Pres Obama's budget, we look back at Pres Reagan's first day in office.

Reagan understood that the country needed an upbeat president who would tell them the truth but would not "spook" the markets.

By the way, the stock market has been dropping since the election and specially since the inauguration.

We have two kinds of people in the country.

On one side, we have "yes we can" screamers who jump up and down when they see Pres Obama.

On the other side, we have investors and entrepreneurs who are scared to death of Pres Obama's words.

We remember the very confident Pres Reagan this weekend! He inspired us rather than scare us with hysteria!

Pres BO won't say "victory" or thanks to Pres Bush and Sen McCain!

What would Iraq look like today if we had followed Obama and the Dems in 2006?

Pres Bush's courageous leadership brought Iraq to this point.

Sen. McCain's leadership kept Dems like Obama from pulling the plug in 2007!

We saw lots of profiles in courage from Bush and McCain.

We saw a lot of "telling people what they wanted to hear" from Obama!

Today, Pres Obama confirmed that Pres Bush was right.

He didn't say it. He just implemented the Bush-McCain policy in Iraq:

"He summed up America's achievement in Iraq thus:

"We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done.

We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done.

And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible." (WSJ)

During the campaign, many in the left mocked Sen McCain about the 100 year war in Iraq.

Of course, McCain was simply talking about leaving a force behind.

Today, Pres BO implemented the Bush-McCain plan. We are leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. As McCain said, Iraq will be like South Korea after the Korean War or Germany after WW2.

Do you think that any of the "yes we can" screamers will apologize to McCain or Bush?

As we posted before, BO was lucky to be wrong about Iraq.

Let's hope that he has better judgement in Afghanistan!

Robin Hood stole from the rich; Pres Obama will take from the middle class!

(The New York Post)

The markets are still a bit shell shocked from Obama Week # 5. See Markets Aren’t Easily Charmed! The investors are not impressed so far!

What else do you expect from back to back to back trillion dollar deficits?

The WSJ blows it up in The Obama Revolution (Paid for by the people):

"The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal.

As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007.

This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II.

It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82."

Beyond that, the federal deficit is shocking:

"These columns focus on spending, rather than deficits, because Milton Friedman taught us that spending represents the real future burden on taxpayers.

Nonetheless, the 2009 budget deficit is estimated to be an eye-popping 12.7% of GDP, which once again dwarfs anything we've seen in the postwar era.

The White House blueprint predicts that this will fall back down to 3.5% as soon as 2012, but this is based on assumptions about Washington that aren't going to happen."

I'm sorry. This is irresponsible, to say the least.

Of course, "the yes we can" screamers will blame it on pres. Bush!

What's new about that? Everything is Pres. Bush's fault!

However, the public, and specially the people who will pay for Pres Obama's liberal fantasy land, will not.

Get ready for a lot of tax increases, specially if you are a small business owner, i.e. the job creators:

"President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire

$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction

$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes

$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income

$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"

$61 billion - repeal LIFO

$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform

$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments

$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas

$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs

$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants

$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties

$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies

$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers

$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years" (JTapper)

Again, only the rich will pay! Repeat: Only the "rich will pay"!

Wonder how many independents voted for Obama and expected him to triple Bush's deficits relative to GDP?

Can some Dems finally "grow up" about Iraq?

This is what the very liberal Peter Beinart wrote about the surge and the Iraq War:

"Bush took the path of most resistance.

He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated.

He was not only right; he was courageous." (Admit It: The Surge Worked)

Beinart did not support the war. However, he is living in the real world.

At this point, success in Iraq is Pres BO's best friend!

It would be in Pres BO's interest to keep Iraq moving forward. Iraq is now a country that we can build a Middle East policy around.

Why are some Democrats still fighting the Iraq War?

I don't get it. It makes no sense. It makes no sense regarding national security either!

Max Boot has a great update about Iraq:

"The reasons to avoid a rush for the exits are compellingly outlined by Mike O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in a typically incisive op-ed reporting on their recent trip to Iraq.

They note that many challenges still remain to be resolved — from holding another round of national elections to dealing with growing Arab-Kurd hostility in northern Iraq.

In light of all this, they write, “while President Obama’s apparent decision to withdraw the bulk of American troops by August 2010 is not necessarily a mistake, it cannot be carried out rigidly.

If all continues to go well, it should be eminently feasible; if not, the administration will have to show the strategic wisdom to slow down as needed to deal with problems.”

It’s hard to argue with that.

We can only hope that in foreign policy Obama will display more pragmatism and moderation than he has so far displayed in the domestic realm."

Unfortunately, Pres BO is tied down by an angry left that can not get beyond Bush.

However, the country needs to move on because success in Iraq is now a good thing for everybody, and specially Pres BO!

P.S. This is another example of how the left has tied down the Dem party: Senate Democrats Surprised by Obama Plan to Leave Up to 50,000 Troops in Iraq!

BO's war on "the rich" and business!

(Thanks to Gateway Pundit)

I'm sorry to break a few "yes we can" screaming hearts.

Here is the WSJ's sad truth about "taxing the rich":

"Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%."

Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.)

These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts.

The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income."

You can't finance Obama-economics by "taxing the rich".

However, you may do it by taxing a lot of us who don't make $250,000!

Get ready for the big tax hike!

P.S. Pres Obama has also declared "war" on businesses, i.e. our employers.

Who does Pres Obama think will hire people?

Someone at The White House should check out this editorial:

"His proposals reflect a stunning disregard for the impact of government policies on economic output and a clear preference for jobs created by government spending rather than private investment.

The president says he wants to eliminate the George W. Bush tax cuts "on the wealthy," a core promise of his campaign.

But those cuts help reduce the cost of capital in America, an essential tool to helping business out of this recession.

Raising the capital gains tax, as Obama proposes, will make private investment dollars even scarcer, as will hiking income taxes on those most likely to invest in the economy."

Are these the same people who ran against Bush's deficits?

Let us say it again.

Pres Bush's federal budget deficits were 3% of GDP over two terms.

The first Bush-Obama deficit will be over 10% of GDP.

The federal budget runs on a Oct 1-Sept 30 cycle. (4 months for Bush and 8 months for Obama!)

It reflects the checks mailed out last spring, the $750 billion TARP and the economic slowdown at the end of the year.

Again, Obama voted for "checks" and TARP. He was not an innocent bystander who learned about the deficits after he was inaugurated.

The first Obama deficit (2010) will be 10% of GDP.

Are you detecting a trend here?

Furthermore, Pres Obama has announced even more spending, from health care to taking care of whatever "your vote" desires!

It gets worse.

Pres BO plans to take care of the deficit by "taxing the rich" and ending the war in Iraq.

What's wrong with that strategy from our "articulate" president?

No matter what, we will have 50,000 soldiers in Iraq beyond 2010. Iraq will be like South Korea, a key foreign post with a major US presence.

Second, we are now sending 17,000 soldiers into Afghanistan. They are going to fight, i.e. spend money and unfortunately lives!

Most of all, there are not enough "rich people" in the US to pay for Pres Obama's fantasies.

Someone should pass "Good Luck On Deficit" to the president for some weekend reading:

"History shows the folly of this assumption — higher tax rates always bring in less money than forecast — which means that revenues from the "rich" will certainly come in well below expectations."

So get ready.

Each and every one of you will soon be "rich" so that President "Articulate" can tax your earnings!

We will soon be a nation of rich people, i.e. taxpayers!

Pres BO talks and the markets drop!

Does Pres Obama understand that he won the election?

Or that he was inaugurated about a month ago?

Why is this guy still campaigning?

Yesterday, Pres Obama came out and attacked Wall Street.

What happened? The markets tanked at the end of the day.

Peter Wehner has some thoughts for our "campaigner in chief:

"The markets — which are not seduced by charm, a million watt smile, and a nice turn of phrase — have reacted quite negatively to Obama’s plans, or in some instances (like banking policy) his failure to produce a plan at all.

As one person in the financial world told the Washington Post yesterday,

“Basically, the market’s giving you no vote of confidence on the Obama administration’s approach to solving the economic woes the country is facing.”

The gap between how Obama described the so-called stimulus bill and the actual legislation underscores my point;

contrary to promises of a new approach to politics, the bill embodied the worst of Congress (ramming through a 1,000 page bill, the most costly in our history, without a single member having read it) and the worst of the modern Democratic Party (using an economic crisis to fulfill a decades-old spending wish list).

There are costs to things like this.

At some point, reality intrudes, and it can be jarring."

The markets are not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

The markets just want some direction. So far, they are not reacting well to the "campaigner in chief"!

20 years of Jerry Jones!

It's hard to believe but Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys 20 years ago this week. He purchased the Cowboys, hired Jimmy Johnson and fired Landry.

I can still remember the weekend. Jones is the new owner. Landry is the ex-coach. And most Cowboys' fans were in a state of shock. After all, Landry had coached the Cowboys for 29 years!

The Dallas Morning News remembers the weekend: Jerry Jones' 20 years with Cowboys filled with ups and downs

How can we evaluate Jones' tenure?

The good news is that Jones won 3 Super Bowl titles. His early drafts produced Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith!

The bad news is that the Cowboys have not won a post-season game since 1998. Also, the Cowboys never replaced Aikman!

On balance, Jones has been a good owner. He is fan friendly. He took the team to the new stadium, perhaps the best football facility in the country. It has a ".....retractable roof and 60-yard digital scoreboard..."

What's his biggest shortcoming? He refused to hire a strong GM with a football background to run the field operations.

Nevertheless, I give him a B-plus. After all, how many owners in any of the four major sports have hung 3 big titles in their office over the last 20 years?

Yankees? Spurs? Patriots? Lakers?

There aren't a lot more successful teams than the Cowboys!

The speech: No mention of Mexico or our escalating commitment to Afghanistan!

We continue our review of Pres. BO's speech, i.e. 50 minutes of generalities and very few specifics!

Let me quote The Economist: Barack Obama, in his address to Congress, asks for sacrifice but skips the details!

Who said that such an articulate man needs details anyway?

Pres BO had one huge omission last night: foreign policy! Iran and Russia!

In fact, he flew over foreign policy.

Didn't Pres Carter want to be a domestic president, too? Didn't he get consumed with foreign affairs?

Foreign policy is like your kid in college. You never know when they will show up asking for money and a bag of laundry.

Overall, has Pres BO forgotten about Al Qaeda? Do you think that they forgot about us?

The NY Post has a good editorial:

"Nor did he mention - not even once - the source of America's still-potent enemy: radicalized militant Islamism.

But for a single reference to "al Qaeda," you might have thought America was threatened by bloodthirsty Quakers."

Afghanistan will be a major headache, too.

During the Bush years, the Democrats declared war on Afghanistan to show the US public that they were serious about terrorism, too.

"We took our eye off the ball" was the clincher line!

As President, BO is painfully learning that sending troops into Afghanistan is going to be a lot more complicated than he thought.

We need to hear more about Afghanistan. Why isn't Pres BO publicly calling on our allies to send troops, too?

Mexico is also a time bomb.

As of today, the US-Mexico border is one gigantic battle zone. Our border cities are impacted by the gunfights a few miles away.

Are we prepared for a wave of refugees from Mexico? What are we going to do about it?

Are we ready for a collapse of the Mexican government?

Last night, Pres BO skipped the details and gave us a nice pep talk.

We need details. At least, we need to know that Pres BO is on top of these potential problems in Mexico and Afghanistan.

2009: The "yes we can screamers" declare war on taxpayers, producers and anyone who creates wealth!

How in the world can anyone buy into all of this nonsense?

I guess there are two kinds of people in the world:

1) "yes we can" screamers. and

2) people who pay taxes.

I love this line from Tucker Carlson:

"And, like the masterful politician he is, Obama sprinkled the speech with enough sweeteners to trigger diabetes:

Massive new spending and deficit reduction at the same time.

Tax cuts for you, tax increases for people you’ve never met.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The end of cancer.

Literally: the end of cancer." (Promises, Promises)

Again, how can any fool buy into this?

There must be a lot of "yes we can" screamers in the world.

The WSJ has a great editorial this morning:

"Mr. Obama suggested he could finance all of this with a combination of a budget scrubbing plus a tax increase on a mere 2% of American taxpayers.

The President said his staff has already found $2 trillion in spending savings, and we look forward to those details.

As for those 2%, they are a lot poorer than they used to be and in any case there aren't enough of them to come close to paying for Mr. Obama's plans.

Despite the President's protests, the American middle class will eventually be asked to pay far more than they do now." (The President has only begun to expand the government. )

Memo to the "yes we can" screamers: Your taxes are going up!

Or should I say that the parents of the "yes we can" screamers will see their "middle class" taxes go up?

Beyond the speech, Pres BO and serious Democrats may want to check out Obama Needs a 'Not To Do' List By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR:

"Mr. Obama came to office without a conspicuous vision other than "bipartisanship" and a belief in the beneficent influence on America and the world of seeing a black man exercising the powers of the presidency.

He wields his party's shibboleths like one who sees them mainly as levers for delivering the goods.

His ideas about the exercise of politics, in fact, may be accurately reflected in the recent stimulus bill -- in office you supply the wish lists of those who put you there.

His will be a fascinating presidency to watch, not least because of his inexperience, his intellectual agility, and the crisis in which he finds himself.

But his presidency will get really interesting in a year or two, or six months -- whenever he finally realizes that everything he thought he wanted to do is irrelevant.

He'll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it.

The public is different now -- the world is different -- and he will own the "Obama depression" sooner than he thinks."

It won't be pretty. It won't be pretty when the "yes we can" screamers tell their parents that the rock concert will create deficits 3 times larger than those under Pres Bush!

President's speech was articulate but expensive!

(This is from American Thinker)

The good news is that Pres BO is very articulate.

The bad news is that the speech comes with a very heavy price. i.e. dollars!

Pres Obama has just dumped $800 billion, i.e. stimulus!

The House Democrats are working on another $450 billion. (House Dems propose new $410B spending bill...)

The UAW and car companies will be visiting The White House soon. Keep in mind that the unions went all out to elect Obama. They have a few checks to cash!

We are still waiting for Sec. Geither to tell us about the banks.

We just heard about a mortgage program that will cost money, too.

We heard about a bank bailout. We are not sure how much it will cost.

Did he really promise universal education through college?

Did he promise universal health care?

And Pres. Obama wants to cut the deficit to $500 billion by the end of his first term!

Here is my prediction: He won't cut the deficit. We will have a federal deficit relative to GDP of 10% in 2009 and 2010!

Let's hope that there is some kind of recovery to bring down those deficits to the 3% of GDP levels under Pres. Bush!

On foreign policy, he looks disinterested. Every president since FDR has had a major foreign policy crisis.

Nevertheless, we had just a few lines about it.

Eric Trager had a good review:

"Obama’s lack of interest in foreign affairs is starting to look dangerous."

I hope that our enemies are also planning to cut their budgets!

Let me share of a couple of my favorite responses to the very long speech, or should I say, the very expensive speech:

"The longer he talked, the more it sounded like a campaign speech.

That's not all bad; Obama is pretty good at giving campaign speeches--better, probably, than he is at anything else.

But I think most people understand that it's time to quit campaigning. Obama has won the office; now he needs to do something with it." (John Hinderaker)

Here is Matt Welch:

"Obama seems to have a difficult time shifting from campaign rhetoric–where drive-by mischaracterizations of political and ideological opponents are the coin of the realm–and governing, where a president in the midst of a crisis might just want to start talking honestly, instead of blowing smoke up the nation's collective arse about the 3.5 million jobs that will be "created or saved" (no really, think about it) as a result of his magic wand."

Again, what's the good news? He won the election!

What's the bad news? He needs to start governing and stop the "hope and change".

In essence, this was a dishonest speech. It had three big problems:

1) I "inherited a deficit".

Actually, he voted for TARP ($750 billion) and he just signed a stimulus. Add $750 plus $800 billion and you get the $1 trillion deficit that "he inherited"!

2) He tells us that we must spend our way of prosperity by raising taxes on the rich. Can you cite a single example of a country that "taxed the rich" and created prosperity? "Tax the rich" demagogues usually tax the middle class!

3) He is going to balance the budget, after he raises taxes on the rich and goes line by line! Why didn't he do that with the $800 billion that includes many "porky projects"?

Let's see how all of this looks like a year from now! Don't invest all of your hopes and dreams in Obama. BO is the next big bubble to burst!

Tuesday's show: A border war update with Alfredo Corchado, The Dallas Morning News!

We spoke today with ALFREDO CORCHADO of The Dallas Morning News.

Everyday, we read about the violence going across the border.

In fact, Texas has a contingency plan in the event that we start getting refugees from Mexico:

"Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said a multi-agency contingency plan is being developed, and it will focus primarily on law enforcement issues, including how to handle an influx of Mexicans fleeing violence.

"At this point, what we're focusing on is spillover violence," Cesinger told FOXNews.com Thursday.

"The immediate concern, if any, would be that."

The plan was tested a few days ago: Recent border violence tests spillover plan!

Click here for the show!

P.S. Darryl Boyne filled in for Adryana Boyne. We spoke about Pres Obama's abortion policies.

Is Pres Obama talking too much?

Tonight, Pres Obama will deliver The State of the Union Address. However, it appears that BO has been president a lot longer than 30 days.

Have you ever seen such a saturated president?

His face is here and there. He is a rock star. He is everywhere.

Gene Healy has a good post called The president talks too much:

"Today's president is a constitutional monstrosity: a national talk-show host with nuclear weapons.

When the president dominates the airwaves, promising to cure all manner of economic and social ills, that leads the public to expect a presidential rescue plan for anything that ails the body politic.

The predictable result is an executive branch that rides roughshod over congressional prerogatives.

The mortgage bailout Obama announced last week is a case in point, since the bulk of the plan, which has enormous repercussions for the U.S. economy, is being enacted without any action by Congress.

A less vocal, less omnipresent president might help us right the constitutional balance of powers.

Moreover, it's not clear that all this speechifying is doing the president himself much good.

After Obama announced his housing plan, one headline writer put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."

When there's no escape from our national talk-show host-when he appears constantly above every gym treadmill-is it any wonder that we typically want his show cancelled just a few seasons in?

Is it any wonder we get sick of him?"

Slow down Mr. President.

Take a little time off. You may be better off if we didn't hear from you every other second!

Trust me! Most Dems are privately scared to death about BO's lack of experience!

Bill Clinton called him a "fairy tale".

Hillary Clinton said that he wasn't ready to be president.

Even VP candidate Biden warned us that BO would be tested and forced to make unpopular decisions.

Trust me. There are many Dems who are starting to come to terms with the fact that we've just elected a man who has never run anything.

Heather Higgins has these thoughts:

"We have elected a president who has no real business or investment experience.

His only notable for-profit venture was selling his book;

as a law professor, community organizer, and legislator, he operated in redistributionist worlds where wealth, garnered from contributions or taxes, is received and redistributed.

In those spheres there's a seemingly bottomless well of funds, but unlike the for-profit world there can be a disjunction between your customers and your funding.

At a non-profit, revenue comes from cajoling funders (who care about students or community residents, but who are not themselves the users of the non-profit's services);

in government, revenue is derived by forcing taxpayers - many of whom are not that legislator's voters - to pay more.

In those worlds, wealth isn't created; it's seen as a fixed pie, and some slice is taken from those who have and given to those who haven't."

The "yes we can" rock concert is over.

And most Dems know they voted for change and got inexperience!

Creepy porky stuff!

Maybe I'm wrong. Wasn't this supposed to be a "job creation bill"?

Let's look at some of the items in the stimulus bill:

"* $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program,” pg. 283;

*Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173;

*$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment,” pg. 232;

*and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212." (Malkin)

And there is more:

"- $1.75 million to acquire land for the Cape Cod National Seashore.

- $2.2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY

- $2.4 million for the Southeastern Poultry Research Lab in Athens, GA

- $42,000 for “Arbuscular Mycontizal Fungi” in Wyndmoor, PA

- $1 million for Corn and Soybean Research in Wooster, OH

- $1.8 million for the Honey Bee Lab in Weslaco, TX

- $1.8 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management Research in Ames, Iowa

- $443,000 for Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi

- $208,000 for Beaver Management and Control in North Carolina

- Several hundred thousand for “Blackbird Management” programs in KS, LA, ND and SD.

- $657,000 for Brown Tree Snake Management in Guam

- $1,049,000 for “Mormon Crickets” in Utah (I am told they are neither Mormon nor are they crickets)

- $162,000 for Rodent Control in Hawaii

- $209,000 to “Improve Blueberry Production and Efficiency” in Georgia

- $254,00 for the “Montana Sheep Institute”

- $413,000 for Tri-State Joint Peanut Research in Alabama

- $2.9 million for Shrimp Aquaculture in AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC and TX

- $277 million for 2nd Avenue Subway

- $210 million for LIRR terminal in Grand Central"

It may be that we need each and everyone of these programs. However, shouldn't Congress have the courage to vote "up or down" on each one?

Secondly, how many jobs will be created?

It's time for someone to read this bill and analyze its "pork vs jobs" status!

What will Pres Obama say about Bill Ayers now?

Don Surber alerts us to Bill Ayers' latest remarks:

"“I don’t regret anything I did it to oppose the war.

It was — I did it to oppose the war.

I don’t regret it.

I don’t look back on those things and regret them, but I’m willing to rethink them.

And there are many things which I’m going to rethink.”

Of course, Ayers was a lot more than an anti-war critic.

Ayers tried to blow up a building and kill people.

Don is right:

"Bill Ayers remains an unrepentant terrorist. He trampled the flag to peddle his book.

Despicable."

Shouldn't Pres Obama say something?

New military campaign in Iraq?

We read that US and Iraqi military have embarked on a new military campaign:

"U.S. and Iraqi forces have launched a new military campaign they hope will put an end to a stubborn insurgency in restive Nineveh province, seen as a final holdout for Sunni Islamist militants, officials said on Sunday.

Brigadier General Said Ahmed Abdullah, spokesman for the northern province's military command, said local forces began searching homes and conducting widespread arrests on Friday as part of the new operation to oust al Qaeda militants." (Reuters)

We assume that Pres Obama approved this operation.

So much for giving our military a new mission in Iraq!

How will the market react to BO's second month?

We will find out more on Tuesday night. However, we learned this over the weekend:

"President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said." (WashPost)

The article goes on:

".....White House budget director Peter Orszag:

"We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term."

The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy."

So a deficit of 3% of GDP is more "manageable"?

Do they mean like the Bush "3% of GDP" deficits that they used to tell us about?

Of course, Pres BO will learn some painful lessons:

1) You won't even touch the deficits by ending the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The total costs is US$ 190 billion, or less than 1% of GDP!

On the other hand, you may turn over Afghanistan to the Taleban or Al Qaeda.

You could also have a collapse of the gains in Iraq.

We recall what happened when the last time we let the Taleban run crazy in Afghanistan.

Can we say 9-11?

Can you say two US embassies blown up in Africa?

Can you say the USS Cole?

2) Raising taxes does not work. How many times do we have to learn that lesson? High taxes discourages investment and job creation!

Just ask Michigan and California.

P.S. In the meantime, it did not get any better on Monday: Major stock market indexes fall to 1997 levels!

How in the world did BO graduate from this corruption with his hands clean?

Chicago, and the reality of governing, have been BO's worst nightmares since November.

We've gone from the "yes we can" screamers to "who will get indicted in Chicago" next!

Here is a little memory lane: Before we learned of Rev Wright's rants, BO told us that he was in church every Sunday at 11am.

After the rants went public, he said that he missed a lot of services.

Incredibly, he missed everyone of Rev Wright's greatest performances!

BO was either deaf or lying about his church attendance!

My question is simple: How did BO grow up in this corruption without getting his hands dirty?

Today's WSJ editorial has an update on the Senator Burris affair:

"Never underestimate the capacity of Chicago politics for spectacle.

True to this form, Illinois Senator Roland Burris is now looking at multiple ethics investigations barely a month after arriving in Washington."

Is there an honest man in Chicago?

Why didn't we hear about anything about Chicago during the two year presidential campaign?

We heard about everything except BO's Chicago roots.

We heard about the Clintons!

I don't like the Clintons but Hillary Clinton was clearly mistreated by a media madly in love with BO.

The NY Times had front page "hit pieces" on John and Cindy McCain. They had glowing stories about Barrack and Michelle Obama!

Now, we are hearing about Chicago's corruption daily.

Where was the media?

I guess that's what happens when the news media flies every reporter to Alaska to investigate everything about Sarah Pallin.

They didn't find anything in Alaska, not even a past due book at a library.

They overlooked Obama's Chicago, a city that fights for "the most corrupt city in the country" title year after year.

Why didn't the news media investigate BO's friends, such as the recently impeached Gov Blago?

Didn't BO endorse and support Gov Blago with all of his energy?

Did BO just learn that Blago was corrupt?

How did BO enthusiastically support Blago's 2006 reelection? Everybody knew that Blago was knee deep in corruption!

I think that something in Chicago is going to bite BO.

I am not sure when or how.

However, get ready for a "Chicago surprise".

P.S. By the way, isn't Tony Rezko still cutting deals with Prosecutor Fitzgerald?

Tony is singing like a canary and BO must be wondering what the tune is!

Maureen Dowd hits Pres Obama?

Normally, I do not read Maureen Dowd of The NY Times.

After all, why should I read what a negative woman has to say?

Nevertheless, a friend sent me Maureen Dowd 's column about Pres Obama:

"Though he demonstrated in the campaign that he has a rare gift for inspiring the country with new belief in itself, Mr. Obama has not yet captured either the grit the moment requires or the fury it provokes.

He has not explained in a compelling way why Americans who followed the rules need to sacrifice more to help those who flouted the rules."

Then she unloaded on AG Holder!

Jennifer Rubin has a good post about the Dowd-BO feud called The Grinch Who Stole Hope:

"Much as it may pain the former community organizer, Obama’s job is not now to criticize, demean, rile and anger the public.

We thought he, better than most politicians in recent memory, understood the power of rhetoric to lift and inspire, but maybe that only worked as a campaign tactic.

Now there is no George Bush to kick around.

And the result seems to be a surly and depressive presidency.

Perhaps we were not the change we were waiting for after all."

We have huge problems. I'm not sure that Pres BO has the temperament for the office! He seems to be eager to blame his predecessor and attack Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli!

Memo to Pres Obama: Chill out. You have not even seen a real crisis yet. Wait until the Russians decide to drive their tanks into the Ukraine or Iran is weeks from having a nuclear weapon.