The road to hell...

is "Paved with Magnificent Intentions." At least that's the Willster's view of the Obama administration's efforts to stimulate the economy. The crux of his argument in this column is that Obama has carried over the confidence-laden rhetoric which helped propel him to the presidency into the field of actual policy-making. Confidence is important, but it is hazardous when gone unchecked by realism. Here are two paragraphs that best illustrate the point:

Improvisation is understandable when confronting the unprecedented, but protracted improvisation precludes a prerequisite for recovery -- investors' certainty about the relationship between the government and the economy. One year ago this weekend, that relationship began changing when the Bush administration decided that Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, was too big, or too connected -- too something -- to be allowed to fail. Seven months later, with the financial system frozen, Congress passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program, fresh proof that the titles of legislation, like the titles of Marx Brothers movies ("Duck Soup," "Horse Feathers"), are uninformative about the contents.

If we are really going to sipphone off $800 billion for TARP, shouldn't we expect some transparency? Where is this money going? Timothy Geithner has been relatively silent on this issue.

Quicker than you can say "toxic assets," which TARP was supposedly designed to quarantine, TARP was subsidizing the manufacture of automobiles partially designed by Washington. Which recent government adventure in enterprise justifies such government confidence? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? Amtrak? Ethanol? (my italics) The government has subsidized ethanol, protected it with tariffs, mandated levels of production and authorized 10 percent ethanol in gasoline blends, and now the shrinking ethanol industry wants government to authorize 15 percent.

Confidence in the government's ability to solve problems, again, needs to be met with a great deal of honest, sober thinking. Rhetorical treats like "We are the one's we've been waiting for!" and "Yes, we can!" sound nice on the campaign trail, but are substantively hollow when injected into the debate about the government's role in addressing the current economic crisis.