There are a number of commentaries on the Obama ‘Pre-Presidency’, here is one below.

“Barack Obama is definitely not President of the United States yet. But, to be sure, how he is operating as president-elect, is gaining more scrutiny than any other newly elected chief executive since FDR. Like Roosevelt, the times are determining the level of intense interest.”
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/12/observing_a_prepresidency.html

Here is a brief video clip of the Obama ‘pre-presidency’.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/video_Obamas_pre_Presidency_07496.html

Its my guess that these are critical and unusual times which mandate new approaches. Maybe Obama feels more comfortable setting the stage before hand. Not being an Obamalalogist I don’t know if he always does such things. Hes clearly operating from a different set of rules than most people. I would say from Stage 6 on Kohlbergs moral developement.

“Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. ” Or perhaps as they conflict with conventional or past understandings of how a President Elect is supposed to act. It could also be how Obamas personality functions. This could be very powerful, or it could really disappoint in the end.

After the election I heard some peoples comments on the radio. I never realized that some people really expect Obama to act something like ‘god on earth’. That just isn’t fair to expect that from a single person, even if its the president, especially given the number of severe problems the country is facing. The video link “Zeitgeist: Addendum” points out the limitations of a president. Many people expect more than what any President can actually do. As an aside interest, Ron Paul is also featured in the video. Its quite lengthy and very interesting to view, even if you don’t agree with anything.

Can anyone tell me why he is acting like he’s president even before he his inaugurated? Did any other presdient do this? I’d like to know if anyone has any info.

“The way I see it, the first job of my administration is to put people back to work and get our economy working again,” he said.
…
He quickly ticked through the basics of his plan, saying that it would “save or create 3 to 4 million jobs in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries — and 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector.”

“I want to be clear — we’re not looking to create just any kind of jobs here,” Obama stated. “We’re looking to create good jobs that pay well and won’t be shipped overseas. Jobs that don’t just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to be on the cutting edge in the long term.”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

The Great Depression and the post-WW2 recession aren’t the only times such a Keynesian-pump priming experiment has been tried, and failed.

For some pretty hard numbers and analysis, see this article in the NY Times, about the Japanese recession in the 90’s. It was published way back in December
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html

It would be safe to assume that to “upgrade” all the facilities and books for each student would not exceed this much that we spend on everything else per child. (Unless someone has data saying otherwise?).

Keep in mind this is a very generous estimate. We ourselves buy everything a child needs for an entire year (food, clothing, shelter, books, toys, school supplies, some luxuries) for about $4500/year.

About 1/3 of the US population is under 18. So . . .

100M students x $6000 per student = $600B.

Gee, same number as the roads. Total $1.2 Trillion. How are we going to spend the rest of the money when this is a very generous estimate? IT’S MAKE-WORK!!!

Government schools have already been debated elsewhere on this blog – to no avail.
Government roadways appear to be closer to acceptance by most who frequent this blog.

I’d like to look at the third side: Is the spending going to PRODUCE anything?

Schools: The upgrading of schools is make-work. Some teachers will get an increase in salary. I can consider that an inflationary adjustment and be ok with it. The facility upgrades in some cases might be needed, but the level that we are talking about is mostly make-work.

There might be a case for roads (especially some of the bridges we keep hearing are falling down). But are ALL of the projects really that necessary? After you take care of all the projects that really need to be done, then what?

I don’t know about schools. But I do know about construction. Here are my very round estimates:

300M people @ $1B per Million for reconstruction = $300B
Only about ¼ are past their useful service life, but I could be off by a factor of 4 (worst case).
So, $300B for interchanges. Let’s double that to take care of side roads, etc. $600B.

This should be enough to make most of us cringe.

But we aren’t even near $1Trillion. How are we going to justify the $7 to $10 Trillion that they are eventually looking to spend? Well, they could be interchanges with hovercraft ramps and fruit trees to feed the homeless. That tree thing isn’t such a bad idea.

The vast majority of this spending is make-work and waste, it won’t produce anything.

You have to see they are only using this as a front to carry on their real objective – to destroy the economy so we’ll be crying out for a dictator who can fix everything. That is how Hitler got his power.

My point is that roads and schools are perfectly appropriate areas for government to work.

Let’s be mindful of the distinction between state and federal governments. State governments (not the federal) have authority over their schools and many of their roads.

Also, I worry about the diminishing power of state governments. Would the federal government be taking over responsibilities that should be left to each state by way of the job transfers?

Leaving aside the question of government interference if I may:

I think sometimes we fall into the trap of living through numbers, and somehow thinking that (for example) the GDP is a measure of how happy we are. The goal of life isn’t to work as hard as you can and then consume as much as you can. That’s a recipe for an unhealthy, stressed-out life with no time for introspection.

Wouldn’t life be more happy and healthy if businesses enforced 30-hour, four-day workweeks? What about four-hour schooldays with less wasted time? Pay the teachers the same, maybe even keep the same curriculum, and let everybody have a few more hours a day to pursue their own interests. Seriously, what a great idea.

(More facetiously, what if people took their time and cooked their own meals from scratch, got eight hours of sleep every night and had a good hour to talk to their significant other every day with no distractions? They wouldn’t be directly contributing to the economy but the world would be quite a bit better.)

I’m getting the feeling that not only do you not want the government to take over the public sector, you don’t even want government to do its own jobs.

What should the government do, if anything, about the increasing number of unemployed? Should it just step aside?

First of all, I hope we all agree that the federal government has no authority to “create jobs” or do anything similar. The states (and the people) retain this power, and depending on each state’s Constitution, some might have the authority to interfere in the economy in this way, and others might now.

I believe that the ideal, though, is to let the market figure itself out. Government (properly instituted) exists only to secure rights and protect individuals—not to ensure they are well-paid, well-fed, and living a comfortable lifestyle.

Any action on the government’s part to provide jobs further exacerbates the entitlement mentality where individuals think that Uncle Sam exists to give us what we want, when we want it. I have no idea where these people get their delusions of grandeur, but it certainly isn’t in the founding documents that created this great nation and allowed for its prosperity to flourish.

In short, yes, I believe that government should completely step aside and let people suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Just as a child will not learn and grow without being allowed to take risk and to fail, so too will grown adults not become more productive and independent until they are allowed to forge their own path free of socialist central-planning.

This ever-applicable quote once again comes to mind:

Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure. (Robert Lefevre, via Quoty)

Daniel,

The jobs you have mentioned are not private sector jobs. Roads and schools fall under public works.

Not all public works are done by salaried government workers. Private contractors take up a substantial chunk of labor-intensive, government-mandated projects. The post-Katrina debacle showed evidence of the nature of this relationship:

JEFFREY KAYE: The extent of the government’s reliance on private contractors can be seen in microcosm at this support center near the French Quarter. Although managed by the U.S. Forest Service, businesses from around the country keep the place running. They wash clothes, run the phone and Internet services, and provide beds. They also cook for 7,000 hungry people– all cops, aid workers, manual laborers and government officials trying to put the city back together. This operation has cost taxpayers $6 million over the past three weeks. Dennis Neill says his agency, the U.S. Forest Service, regularly relies on the same contractors to provide support services.

DENNIS NEILL: I won’t say we can’t do it. I will say it would be a lot more expensive and it would be very difficult and it would take us some time to get geared up to do it. So they are a lifeline for us. It is a partnership. You know, they make a living, there is no question about it. They are well paid for what they do; they deserve every penny of it.

I pause, though, to ask a simple question, and one that has been oft-repeated in different circumstances: since when did we elect a President to create jobs in the “private” sector?

The jobs you have mentioned are not private sector jobs. Roads and schools fall under public works.

Opportunity cost is the sacrifice made when selecting one product or service over another.

The popular political slogan ‘Guns or butter?’ suggests that national defense is the price to be paid for not fulfilling high consumer expectations, and vice-versa.

~J M Buchanan, Cost and Choice (Chicago, 1969)

One might argue that government pays the ultimate in opportunity costs, since it has no competition…… (nor, in this case real demand or real profits)