Wall Street Weekly | 06/12/2009 11:55 am

Obama’s Czars Play Russian Roulette With Business, by Liz Peek

At the end of the day, this country will be able to battle our growing list of issues only if our businesses prosper

By Liz Peek

Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: wOw’s Wall Street Weekly with Liz Peek (Week of 6/8)

Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist and the author of wOw’s SHEconomics.

For those who consider me a gloom-meister, take note: In spite of five days of steady rain that could plunge Pollyanna herself into despair, I have two items of good news. The first is that ten U.S. banks will start repaying $68 billion in TARP funds beginning next week. This surely suggests that most of the country’s large financial institutions have regained their footing.

Unfortunately, the banks’ eagerness to repay government funds highlights controversial strong-arm tactics that the Obama administration has used to bring corporate America to heel. The president’s team used TARP dependence to pressure the firms – some of which were forced to take TARP funds that they didn’t need – to accept unacceptable terms on the auto bankruptcies, and to push through credit card regulations, boardroom changes, pay restrictions and mortgage refinancing programs deemed in the greater good. No wonder that, once again, the Treasury’s plan for private purchases of toxic assets (PPIP) is dead on arrival. No one in their right mind wants to get in bed with this government. (This actually did start out to be a positive message!)

The second bit of cheer comes from China. What great news that the Chinese have blundered into a public censorship squabble, highlighting just what is supposed to be the difference between Communism and capitalism. Just when I was beginning to despair that the Chinese were doing everything right as we were headed in the opposite direction, they suddenly dictate that laptops sold in their country must be equipped with a device that will allow for government control over content.

Thank heavens. Recently, the Chinese have been on a roll. Against many odds, they have weathered the global financial storm better than most. They adopted a $586 billion infrastructure-centered stimulus package last fall that actually seems to be creating jobs (while ours is saving jobs), they continue to take a farsighted and strategic view of acquiring resources the world over (while we discourage even our own resource development – coal oil, natural gas), they have slowly been privatizing and deregulating industry (while we are increasing government’s role), and they have been building up their military (while we …). In sum, they have been getting richer while we’ve been getting poorer. As a result, the Chinese can now destabilize our markets by voicing disaffection for dollars or by shunning our very necessary sales of Treasury bonds. That they own $2 trillion of such assets thankfully aligns our interests at least in the short run. But there’s no denying that such a stake gives China an undesirably big seat at the U.S. table.

The proof of their recession-fighting measures is in the pudding; despite plunging exports, long the driver of China’s economy, industrial output rose 8.9% in May, and retail sales were up 15.2%. The stimulus plan appears to be turning their economy inward and helping to create more balance – a highly desirable outcome.

With all this success comes a certain bumptiousness. A recent editorial by Singapore Professor Zheng Yongnian in The China Daily said “the developed (countries) are worried that the Chinese model could become the alternative to that of the West.” That may be true, but though we may envy China’s expected growth of 8% this year, the recent heavy-handed intrusion into what citizens may or may not receive over the Internet reminds us why we are happy to live in the U.S.

Not that everything is so peachy at home. But we do have the right to criticize our government, a right that seems especially important just now. We have a young, ambitious president who unfortunately came into office in the middle of a terrible recession. His desire to fix numerous problems is laudable; his confidence that increased government involvement and spending will loft us over most hurdles ignores our diminished pocketbook.

161 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Diamond, “czar” is an unofficial reference that has been in use since the early Reagan era. Who are these 21 people you refer to and what are their official positions?

By Zera Lee on 06/15/2009 11:44 pm

e-mail alert

The so-called “czars” are nothing like political officers. They focus on the success of a particular policy, not the ideology or “loyalty” of individuals. If you want political officers, talk to Michele Bachmann. She’s already expressed interest in that sort of thing.

The term was coined back in ‘82, under Reagan. These appointments by Obama are not new to government, and do not represent a new change in the structure of government.

The checks and balances went out with Bush43. Obama44 has been bringing them back.

By Zera Lee on 06/18/2009 11:59 pm

e-mail alert

The checks and balances are our congress and our senate - not people ‘appointed’ by the President to deal with issues of concern to this country. If it is to push his own agenda then he is circumventing our constitutional system and would not be legal. If it is to push his own agenda then the money to pay these people had better be coming out of the Democrat party and not the public trough.

By canuck canuck on 07/09/2009 6:18 am

e-mail alert

The “czars” do not set policy or evangelize ideology, they implement policies set through normal channels. It may be a good idea to have advise-and-consent on some of the more sensitive positions, but I think that is up to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

Advice and Consent of the Senate is not the only system of checks and balances we have, but Bush43 demonstrated how all of them can be circumvented - with widespread support from the GOP.

By Zera Lee on 07/10/2009 12:04 pm

e-mail alert

…. hold it … hold it …. counting Repubs …. k …. all on board ….. counting Dems …. WOW - ALL ON BOARD TOO AFTER 911 ….. counting again ….. yep …. SAME NUMBER! Maybe they were all in a trance or something and did not know what they were supporting …. musta been the koolaid ….

By canuck canuck on 07/10/2009 12:53 pm

e-mail alert

Silly me…I thought it was Business playing Russian Roulette with Business these many years…thus that’s how we got into this ditch…and all the time it’s Obama’s fault…gosh what would we do without ole Lizzie Peak to s’plain it all to us?

By Victoria J on 06/14/2009 5:04 pm

e-mail alert

Liz, I would like to know if you have an opinion about the Economist Peter Schiff. Frankly his ideas sound a lot like your ideas taken to the next level.

I would appreciate your opinion

By CYNTHIA NEIL on 06/16/2009 10:39 pm

e-mail alert

To date there are 33 Czars and counting

- Jack Kingston (R) has been trying to bring concerns about this to the congressional floor but Pelosi and Reid are blocking him every time. It is determined that each of these unvetted appointments by Obama are making at least $170,000 a year (do the math - 33 x $170,000) - these are not elected officials but appointed by Obama and they are circumventing congress and the senate as they answer to no one. Each is also thought to have a staff of perhaps 10 other people. Again - elected by no one but appear to have great power in our government. HOW??? They are doing paraell work to the congress and senate but HOW??? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY DO THEY HAVE A SAY IN WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR GOVERNMENT??? WHY ARE WE AS AMERICANS STANDING BACK AND SAYING NOTHING ABOUT A GOVERNMENT THAT IS CIRCUMVENTING OUR LEGAL ELECTORAL PROCESS, THAT IS NOT LISTENING TO A THING WE SAY AND IS NOT READING BILLS THEY ARE PASSING COSTING US TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

MORE MONEY HAS GONE TO ACORN - WHY? This organization is under criminal investigation yet they are still getting huge grants from our government. They will also be involved in the census taking process and it has been found out that this is a corrupt organization.

WHAT IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON? and now there is talk of a second stimulous bill when the first one has not worked???

Common sense tells this American that we are headed for big, big trouble if we do not start standing up and screaming to our reps to stop the madness …

By canuck canuck on 07/09/2009 6:11 am

e-mail alert

I repeat, …Don’t hold back. Give names and specifics.

Tell again. I missed what you have against the NIH czar appointment, Homeland Security czar, border czar, etc. What was that again? Circumventing how?

By Maggie W on 07/10/2009 1:48 pm

e-mail alert

Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government Obama has worked long and hard to distance himself from extremists in his past such as Rev. Jermiah “Them Jews” Wright and William Ayers. And, to some extent, he’s managed to convince the public at large (with no small amount of help from his friends in the media) that his associations with these people in his past were trivial and inconsequential.

But how about someone he’s picked to actually serve in his administration? It turns out that John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”—in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives—using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

It’d be nice if, in the coming days, someone could ask Obama if he agrees with Dr. Holdren on these issues. The backpedaling and evasions sure to be amusing.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_science_czar_wrote_book_supporting_forced_abortions_mass_sterilizatio/

By canuck canuck on 07/11/2009 12:31 am