Yet even “Tonight” host Jay Leno broke from full flattery to reveal his qualms about the meaning of the bonus tax. “Here’s something that kind of scared me,” he said. “If the government decides they don’t like a guy, all of a sudden, hey, we’re going to tax you and then, boom, and it passes.”

Obama brushed it off, part of an endless road show claim that he will bring back “common sense” to the financial system and restore “those values that built America.”

If only. In truth, there is no history for what he is doing. He is the most radical President of our times, far outside the mainstream of our political philosophy.

He is not a reformer who fixes things. He fancies himself “transformative,” a man who reshapes and reorders. It apparently begins with smashing the existing order under the pretext of managing the crisis he inherited.

During the campaign, a fellow journalist confided that “I know Obama is a Manchurian candidate, I just can’t figure out what for.”

U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey . . .

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

Hit hardest would be the “95% of working families” Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat “unless you use energy.” Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office — Mr. Orszag’s former roost — estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels — particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It’s no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade — Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey — come from California or the Northeast.

Well, sorry, but it is a big deal because it evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work and why they are tanking under his watch. The p/e ratio is a measure of the value of a stock. A stock selling at $100 per share, for example, might be “cheaper” than a stock selling at $50 per share. Why? Because the naked price of a stock doesn’t tell you how much the underlying company is making, or how many shares of that company are outstanding. Thus, all other things being equal, a stock with a higher p/e ratio is more expensive and overpriced compared to a stock with a lower p/e ratio.

Therefore, even if you substitute the word “price” for the word “profit” in the President’s statement, his message is still wildly incoherent. What he literally said is, “Stocks are overpriced, but with the declines we’ve seen [20% since he was inaugurated], p/e ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is potentially a good deal.” The immediate take-away from that statement, if true, is that stocks remain somewhat overpriced, and investors should wait until they drop further before investing. That’s not exactly the type of message you want to send if you’re looking to shore-up a falling market.

But more importantly, p/e ratios simply aren’t the issue right now. The market has fallen by 50% in the last year and now hovers around 1997 levels. In a functioning economy, corporate earnings would be more than sufficient to support p/e ratios at their current levels. The problem is that major sectors of the economy (most obviously the financial sector) are losing money. When a company is losing money, the p/e ratio is literally meaningless (because their are no earnings, therefore, the “e” in p/e is zero—and you can’t divide by zero).

In other words, President Obama’s statement was not simply a casual mistake. It evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes the markets work. This fundamental misunderstanding was further demonstrated when he made the following statement earlier in the week:

Sorry, Mr. President, you’re wrong. The stock market is not like a tracking poll in a political campaign that fluctuates from day to day because of the variability inherent in any form of statistical sampling. Markets fluctuate based upon investors’ collective judgment of companies’ ability to earn profits in the future. Yes, sometimes markets are somewhat irrational in the short run, but they are always rational in the long run. Stocks have dropped 20% since you took the oath of office because investors have concluded that companies are less like to generate profits given your economic agenda. I happen to believe that is a completely rational judgment. That is what happens when governments raise taxes and borrow money to fund deficits (which, in turn, crowds out the availability of capital for the private sector).

The reality is that President Obama doesn’t really care all that much about the stock market. He thinks it is nothing more than a casino for the super-rich. It’s not. It’s a reflection of the health of American businesses—the same businesses that need to start hiring people if unemployment is going to fall and the economy is going to start growing again. We should all be very worried.

Congressman Offers Preemptive Apology For Extramarital Affair

(I know. It has nothing to do with Rev. Wright. I just love that picture.)

The Audacity of Grope

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.

Whether solar energy is worth investing in at the federal level is open to debate.  We welcome this debate.  We would like to provide you with the following clarifications:

• In our business area in Colorado, approximately 50% of the cost of a solar electric system is paid for via a rebate program administered by the local utility, Xcel Energy.  The rebate program is funded via a rider on customer utility bills, which was instituted as a result of Amendment 37 in 2004 which was directly approved by voters and created a renewable energy requirement.  The renewable energy goals were doubled by the state legislature in 2007.

• Federal subsidies only cover 15% of the cost of a typical solar electric system since the tax credit is applied after the utility rebate.

• The cost to the consumer after all subsidies is typically $10,000 – $20,000, leaving substantial room for competition to drive down costs.

• Namaste Solar competes in the same market with companies who have traditional business models.  We are #1 in market share and we have been profitable since our second year of business (2006).

Best regards,

Dan Yechout

Co-Owner

This doesn’t really change my views, but I respect them for responding.