The world has perhaps turned a bit uglier for President Obama. Short into his 1^st term, he has successfully lost the confidence of more than few key-economist, historian and public figures. Just less than two weeks ago did Obama’s plea for support troops in Afghanistan was rejected by the European Union (EU) members. The response though fortunately failed to tarnish his reputable image. The Obama fever hasn’t cooled down, the people are still addicted and Obama girl is still active.

Barack Obama is doing exactly what his campaign says, and the financial statements, the unemployment rates and much more are not exactly getting much better. He is not entirely wrong, for the past 4 months he has done few things past American presidents would not dare to do, pulling away troops from Iraq and announcing the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Though current polls shows that by last February his approval rating among Democrat has drop by 6 percent but is still remaining high of 92% and for the Republican of dropping by 19% down to 31%[1]. Though the middle class society and the rest of the world is totally in love with Obama, various economic critic and historians are starting to think otherwise. Only last month did Tim Ferguson mention that “attempts to rescue the economy by Washington and other political capitals have done little good and much harm”[2]. Numerous of them have proposed actions and ideas on which systems that need revamping but none seems to past his ears. And here we are counting our matchsticks paying the price of ignorance. It seems as if the meetings before his inauguration centering on the economic crisis was not constructive. Either this or Obama’s economic ‘teacher’ Larry Summers is a terrible one.

His more current move in nationalizing the financial institutions is a much opposed one. The government's decision to purchase minority stakes in financial institutions and further expand its deposit insurance programs will bolster its power over how financial institutions are managed and regulated going forward. But do the steps that the Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. plan to take amount to a partial nationalization of our financial system?[3] The idea of this gives the govt. more than just huge stake in decision making but relinquishes the idea of a free enterprise bringing government bureaucracy[4] into the picture. No longer are corporations free to make decisions without any government intervention. This gives the federal bank micro management of the financial institutions. It may be good in a way of decreasing the risk of non-performing loans. But then walks in the issue of how the govt. is going to implement the action as the buying out of the financial institutions shares would deliberately allow the equity holders to walk away freely without any consequence.

Another problem lies in the appointment of Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner himself. Here is the man who has been in the crisis in the middle of summer 2007 and still failed the New York Reserve. Steve Forbes wrote “You would think he’d have been ready for decisive, bold actions as soon as Obama took the oath of office. Instead, he has discouraged markets with his vague generalities[5]”. An article in the New York Times mention that “As the day wore on, Mr. Geithner faced growing skepticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers, many of them channeling deep voter disgust with the way the government has handled the bailout over the last nine months[6]”. The Senate Finance Committee cited his lack of details and information in his plans giving a lack of confidence in the Obama-lead administration. Even the House Financial Service Committee, Wall Street and various Economists are taking swipes on his costly blunder that’s taking up precious time waiting for more detailed plans[7]. They also took an offense towards the new Bank Bail-Out plan commenting that tax payers money are practically going to banks and financial institutions that directly helped the current crisis escalate. These banks are not investing or lending out paralyzing the credit flow without anyone gaining from it. And with the nationalization it’s going to be worse as the Chairman of the Federal Bank, Ben Bernanke who is weary and reluctant to invest. The whole purpose of having savings is to direct savings from one party to be invested with another party, as explained by Steve Forbes[8]. But what Bernanke is doing is following his predecessor Alan Greenspan is avoiding ‘excess savings’ which is practically preposterous, because there can never be an excess in savings!

President Obama should take a cue from his hero Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln did whatever that was necessary, firing incapable generals and taking up books on war when his advisors did not perform. Though Obama is still in his honeymoon with America, it is clear that with his declining confidence in the senate and Russia’s Putin’s new plan to reestablish itself as the major player gathering back the nations lost from the Soviet Union he may have to change his basic premises. In the coming months, he would face an even worse situation and escalating opposition. He cannot afford to have the slows as the financial crisis is said to only be brewing. The unemployment rates are still low, and the results are yet to show, and if this persist to happen he too like Herbert Hoover, shall be a one-termer.