Obama's 100 Days, my 100th post

I discovered something interesting a second ago: this is my 100th post on this blog. Wow. I guess it's appropriate that this post is about President Obama's first 100 days. Let's get right to it:

Yesterday I asked readers to grade the president's performance on three economic areas: his handling of the housing crisis, the Wall Street bailouts and the economic stimulus package. Now, here's my grade:

Overall, I give President Obama an "I" for incomplete on his performance on the economy. That's not a bad thing but it's not great, which is the point. Despite his high approval rating and Democrat-controlled Congress, the idea that the economy would improve this soon because of anything the president has done is unrealistic. It's easy to blame Bush's eight years for the problems but our economy had fundamental problems -- most notably all of us living off credit -- long before that.

On specifics, I give Obama a B on housing, mostly for signing a package that gives an $8,000 tax credit to new homebuyers. On the stimulus package, he gets a C. I'm optimistic that much of what's in it will help, but it's taking a while for federal and state bureaucracies to start spending the money, and I'm no fan of bureaucracy anyway. There's always waste and corruption involved. That grade could easily go to a B or an A, especially if any of this funding for improving passenger rail service actually happens.

Last, on the Wall Street bailouts, another C. Something had to be done to prop up the financial system. Obama stepped up to the plate depsite how unpopular investment bankers are and so far none of the remaining big banks has failed. But that doesn't mean they won't, and most people still can't get over the AIG bonuses.

What's your take? Do you think the economy is getting any better under Obama?

Michael Eric Dyson & President Obama

I'm back on the Michael Eric Dyson Show this afternoon, discussing the economy this afternoon at 1:45. We'll be talking about the Obama administration's work on a "Cardholders' Bill of Rights" for credit card consumers, the fact that men are suffering more from job losses in the current recession than women and the troubles in the auto industry. Check the Dyson web site to see where the show airs in your city.

In the meantime, tomorrow marks 100 days in office for President Obama, so tomorrow's post will be about how he's done on the economy so far. How would you grade the president on his efforts on housing, the Wall Street bailouts, the economic stimulus package and other initiatives to turn the economy back around? Leave your grade in the comments section.

Will the housing plan help you?

When I posted about passage of Obama's stimulus plan, I got a few comments from readers who were pretty much indifferent. A lot of government spending, a $400 tax break: the tone was that while it might help the broader economy, there's nothing in it for me personally.

So I'm wondering if your attitudes are the same after hearing about the $75 billion housing rescue plan that Obama announced yesterday. If you haven't heard the details by now (and if you haven't you died yesterday and woke back up this morning), Obama wants to help as many as 9 million homeowners by allowing those struggling with houses that are underwater refinance their loans. In English, that means if your house is worth less than you owe because of the drop in the housing market, you be able to get a new, lower-interest loan that reflects the actual value of the property.

You won't have to already be late on your mortgage to qualify, but your payment does need to be more than 31 percent of your income. (That's important because under old, sensible lending rules, banks never would have let you take a mortgage where the payment was more than a third of your income anyway.) One big question I have is whether that 31 percent limit will apply to your gross income or your take-home pay? That could make a big difference for many.

In any event, this seems like a stimulus plan that will help a lot more people directly, though it's unclear whether $75 billion is enough to help 9 million homeowners.

If we keep bailing everyone out, will our kids learn from our mistakes?

The automakers want another $22 billion in taxpayer money to stay afloat, even as they get ready to lay off 50,000 more people and close plants (which will lead to layoffs at other companies). Investment bankers took $700 billion in taxpayer money, yet even Donald Trump says the government needs to force them to lend it out. And they're still giving themselves billions in bonuses. And today, President Obama will unveil his plan for using $50 billion of taxpayer money to help fix the housing crisis. That plan will include helping people who's homes are worth less than they owe on them and those who have subprime and other bad loans refinance.

Is it me, or does it seem like the only people not getting economic help from Washington are people who are doing all the right things?

I know what some of you are thinking so let me give the requisite disclosures: a) I'm not equating the behavior of car executives or Masters of the Universe Wall Streeters with people who need help staying in their homes. Nor am I oblivious to the fact that with the economy in as bad shape as it is that the government pretty much has no choice but to do something -- and that always means spending a lot of taxpayer money.

But none of that allays my central fear, which is that instead of making my generation take a tougher look at our finances and, for those of us with kids, teaching them that managing your money smartly and having ethics when you run a business are important, what we may be doing the opposite by doling out so much cash to people who ostensibly made the biggest mistakes.

Think of it this way: when my 12-year-old watches the news with me, he hears the stories of executives getting fat bonuses and planning opulent retreats. He's not old enough to understand what a credit default swap was and how that guy in the suit contributed to all the "for sale" signs in the neighborhood. Over the summer, my nine-year-old told me "Daddy, I want you to buy a house." I don't know where he got that from, but apparently, the kid understands that Dad's a renter and that there's something he'd like better about me owning.

Is it too great a leap to think he might see some guy on TV who paid $300,000 for a house that's now worth one-third of that, that he could never have afforded anyway, getting the chance to refinance the loan that he never should have gotten? The thought confounds me, so I can't imagine what a kid might make of it.

In any event, we all hope all the money we're spending on 'fixing' the economy is well-spent. But it occurs to me that what really needs to be fixed is our national and personal financial priorities so that next time around, the good guys win.

Keith Reed on the PBS's News Hour

That's a screen-grab from my appearance last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. (They haven't posted the video yet, but here's a transcript and here's the audio.)

I was on a panel of four business reporters and editor discussing the impact the stimulus bill would have on people in different parts of the country. Last week, I posted about my reservations about how much the bill would do for the average Joe, but after listening to my colleagues, I gained a new perspective. The goal of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress really is less about directly helping you and I (i.e., Bush's stimulus checks of a few years ago) than it is about jump-starting the economy by handing states money for projects, with the hope that the rising tide of public spending will lift all boats.

Call me Republican here (though I'm bewildered at the GOP accusing anyone of spending too much public money after the deficit the Bush administration left) but I personally would like to have seen much more aid to struggling workers and consumers than I would government spending. The $400 per person, $800 per couple tax break just won't be enough to make people spend more when they're worried about their jobs (hell, I don't even qualify). The $8,000 home buyer tax credit might encourage some buyers, but is almost half what the homebuilding industry wanted.

One thing is clear: the government will have to spend MORE money after TARP and this round of spending to get things going again. There will be no magic bullet.

Look for me on TV tonight

Tonight I'll be on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer talking about how the stimulus bill will impact the average person. If you've got any good ideas on what the tax cuts, unemployment benefits or housing tax credits will do for you, leave a comment. I'll post the video later.