by Frank James
Warren Buffett, America's favorite billionaire financial guru, had advice for President Barack Obama as well as congressional Democrats and Republicans. The country is now faced with an economic war that is nothing less than the military war it faced after Pearl Harbor.
Given that, Buffett said, Obama needs to scale back his agenda, congressional Democrats need to temporarily give up pet projects and stop actions that inflame the minority. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans should stop opposing for the sake of opposing.
His comments came during a three-hour interview with CNBC's Joe Kernen and Becky Quick from the floor of the Nebraska Furniture Mart, one of the many businesses owned by his Berkshire Hathaway Co.
Buffett has been a prominent supporter and occassional adviser to Obama. So his criticism is worth noting.
Buffett knocked Rahm Emanuel's famous maxim (famous at least to us inside-the-Beltwayers) that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, that it's important to use the urgency surrounding crises to get other important agenda items accomplished.
An excerpt from the transcript:
BUFFETT: Well, I was going to mention to Joe that you've heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'BECKY: Yeah.
BUFFETT: Now, just rephrase that and since it's, in my view, it's an economic war, and--I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and--but we expect to--expect the other party to unite behind us on the--on the big problem.' It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.
At another point, America's most avuncular billionaire likened the economic crisis to World War II as he tried to make his point that the behavior that's been on display lately in Washington would have been out of the question during that earlier period.
It was Buffett's way of trying to shame Washington policymakers to stop their incessant partisan bickering and posturing and to unite to face the enemy at hand, the worst combination of economic and financial circumstances since the Great Depression.
Another excerpt:
BUFFETT: Right. And, Joe, it--if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,' and you didn't have congress people putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941.BUFFETT: So I think--I think that the minority has--they really do have an obligation to support things that in general are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. And I don't think you should--I don't think before D-Day on June--on June 5th you ought to have--or June 1st, maybe, have a congressional hearing and have 535 people give their opinion about where the troops should land and, you know, what the weather should be and how many troops should land and all of that. And I think after June 6th you don't--you don't have another hearing that says, `Gee, if we'd just landed a mile north.'
JOE: Yeah, but you might--might not have fixed...
BUFFETT: But I say...
JOE: You might not--you might not have fixed global warming the day after--the day after D-Day, Warren.
BUFFETT: Absolutely. And I think that the--I think that the Republicans have an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and, in general, support of that. But I think that the--I think that the Democrats--and I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy--but I think they should not use this--when they're calling for unity on a question this important, they should not use it to roll the Republicans all.
JOE: Hm.
BUFFETT: I think--I think a lot of things should be--job one is to win the war, job--the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.
If the current economy is really a war, that would make Obama the commander in chief leading the nation in that war. As such, Buffett argues, Obama is the singular leader who must be deferred to until the nation is beyond the crisis, he said.
Another excerpt:
BUFFETT: Well, I think that the first--you have to recognize that it is an economic Pearl Harbor. If you don't believe that, then why should members of Congress not, you know, why shouldn't they throw in 8,000 earmarks or do what they've been doing? Congress, and I think I said this six months ago, I mean, they're a patriotic group of people. I don't think maybe they understood fully, some of them, the gravity of the situation and what is required. What is required is a commander in chief that is looked at as being the commander in chief in a time of war and the support that generally he needs and other things that have to be given up. When we get all this solved and go back to yelling at each other, you know, and putting in pet projects and doing all that sort of thing. But for the time being we should put that, as much as we can, aside and then frankly, nobody but the president now will be believable to the American people.
I mean, you can't--people have heard--they don't--names like Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, those--that's just a muddle to them. The only authoritative voice in the United States who says, `This is what we're going to do, this is what we're not going to do,' and very specifically, is the president of the United States.
Comments
and stop actions that inflame the minority.
Normally I would agree...but it is quite obvious that the republicans have no interest in solving problems, just wishing for failure. The republicans, when in power, could have cared less about the democrats concerns and even in "good times" doubled the debt.
Posted by: bill r. | March 9, 2009 3:14 PM
"congressional Democrats need to temporarily give up pet projects and stop actions that inflame the minority"
Yes, we the majority party Dems should give up on our agenda because the very small minority party Repuglicans don't like it.....NOT!
Please... the Repugs were voted into the minority for a very good reason, they're insane, and a majority of Americans don't want them anywhere near making US policy decisions anymore.
Posted by: Inconvenient Facts | March 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Who gives a sh*t what Warren Buffet thinks about any legislation. If he wants to get in the game he can run for political office like anyone else.
Buffets expertise is in money management, NOT politics,which means he is in favor of paying the least amount possible to wage earners. Although he is honest enough to admit he, and all the other billionaires, aren't paying their fair share of taxes that doesn't mean he has any idea what the average American lives like or that he cares
Posted by: Ned Flanders | March 9, 2009 3:53 PM
Buffett's remarks are of a capitalist and serve well the interest of our nation in crisis. Team Obama and Team Democratics are not capitalists nor do they serve the interest of our nation.
Posted by: Kem Weber | March 9, 2009 4:20 PM
Ahhh, I see two of the king lefty loons have chimed in, bill r and inconvenient facts, which is probably one of John E's many names.
Anyway, Republicans are not opposing simply to oppose. The reality is that what the Dems have been doing has been harmful to the country, not good. That is why the stock market has really tanked since Obama became president and especially since he took the lead in the polls last Fall. The markets are tanking because of Obama's radicalism and socialistic agenda.
In just six weeks, this sadminiastration has been a complete and utter failure. And, Frank, it's not just not in the Beltway the discussion over this sadministration's belief that you can't waste a good crisis. First of all, what is a good crisis? Second, Queen Hillary spoke of not wasting a good crisis in the Middle East.
In just six weeks, this sadministration is well on its way toward destroying the USA, which I believe is its agenda anyway.
Posted by: John D | March 9, 2009 4:24 PM
Apparently "government" itself inflames the minority, so they should get out of it. Small government can start with a few less Republicans. Then we can have smart government instead of dealing with lunatics who literally said about the the government of, by, and for the People: we want to "drown it in a bathtub."
Posted by: KC | March 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Kem Weber, your statement has no basis in fact; the capitalists let us down; and I have to wonder if somewhat with billions at stake can be thinking of the nation ahead of his own dire straits.
Posted by: Flo | March 9, 2009 4:49 PM
John D: People can have a differing opinion from you and not be out to destroy the USA. Get off your self-indulgent high horse.
Posted by: Joe | March 9, 2009 4:52 PM
In just six weeks, this sadminiastration has been a complete and utter failure. And, Frank, it's not just not in the Beltway the discussion over this sadministration's belief that you can't waste a good crisis. First of all, what is a good crisis? Second, Queen Hillary spoke of not wasting a good crisis in the Middle East.
Posted by: John D | March 9, 2009 4:24 PM
....
Quit your crying, Little Johhny Droid,
It's going to take more than two months to clean up the mess that Bush and the BushCo Republican sycophants (you) made the last eight years. In fact we're probably still going to be cleaning up your mess 30-40 years from now.
If you clown Wingnuts thought the Bush stench that you enabled to happen to our country was going to magically go away on Jan 20, 2009 then you are even more delusional than I thought.
Posted by: Janet | March 9, 2009 5:02 PM
I've seen nothing to suggest the economy is not the main focus of the President and his administration (the media are another story). The banks are being means tested as we speak to find out which ones are worth supporting and which ones might be a lost cause. The same goes for the auto industry. It took time to get us in this situation, and it will take time to come up with solutions, and even more time for those solutions to work. If they are going to work; there are no easy answers here. If there were, I'm sure Buffett would have offered some.
I'm not sure what the "pet projects" he is referring to are, but if one of them is health care that is decidedly not a "pet project." Not when health care costs are the number one reason for personal bankruptcies. Not when U.S. businesses aren't as competitive because of health care costs. Not when we have rising numbers of unemployed who can't afford health care. Not when hospitals are under incredible strain as the emergency room is being used as primary care. And so forth, and so on.
Neither are education (people need to re-train), or energy independence (producing green jobs that can't be outsourced so easily, stop giving so much money to the Saudis) "pet projects."
It's not like wars are always won by focusing on one front. Health care, education, and energy independence are different fronts on the battlefield, and they are all important to winning the war.
The Republicans had eight years to implement their policies, not to mention all the time and money they spent obstructing the Clinton administration or pushing his policies to the right. They never questioned the millions spent to go after President Clinton, the trillions spent in other countries, and now they want to start? How convenient.
It's unfortunate that it takes a crisis of this magnitude to focus on what's really important -- taking care of our country and its citizens -- but if we don't start doing it now, we never will.
Posted by: Rae | March 9, 2009 5:03 PM
It is always good to hear Warren's viewpoint.
What is clear in all of this, at least to me, is we the people of the United States need to pull together and strongly encourage our government to start doing what is "right". The Republican's screwed up. Ok. But they had plenty of help during their reign. Now the Democracts are in power. They are screwing up.
No one should expect to be "paid back" for electing someone to lead our government.
What is the answer?
We are all in this together. What we need is a government committed to supporting a level playing field, with some reasonable safety nets to give people who fall a chance to get back up. This is the most we can hope for from government (it is all we need).
What we need is everyone to ask themselves, would I pay someone to do what I just did today?
We need people with a passion for the company they are working for, instead of someone focused on the short term benefit to himself. If we can really do this, we see the value in the whole organization, rather than just a piece. If we can do this as a society, we see the value everyone brings, not just some people.
What we have in this country is so much more than making money. And we must never take it for granted.
The reason we need to pull together, and do what is right is for our children, and their children, and all of the other creatures that inhabit this planet.
I think just maybe, if we can realize that we are all in this together, maybe the idea of "getting ahead" will come after "doing what is right". The ends never justify the means.
I think C.S. Lewis had it right when he defined evil as "good intentions gone bad". We must all step back, and realize as good as our intentions may be, these intentions may be wrong. It is happening at the top of our economic chain, and it extends from there all the way to the bottom. No one wants to believe they are wrong. But unless we question it, there is no chance of seeing it.
Maybe the first true step is we all quit thinking about ourselves. Once we step outside ourselves, we may be able to see none of us has the single answer. It is a difficult but mind opening proposition.
None of this is easy. I know from a personal standpoint, I have grown and learned more about myself in bad times than I ever could have in good times. I hope this is possible for us as a country.
I believe it is.
Posted by: Dan O. | March 9, 2009 5:53 PM
Billy,
.
Speaking of the party out of power wanting the president to fail:
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/
.
Ned,
.
I believe BO values Buffet's opinion quite a bit considering that he once stated that he would consider Buffet as his Sec of Treasury.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/warren-buffett-federal-re_n_133000.html
.
It's pretty good considering in just 50 days BO has his own bear market.
Posted by: Terry | March 9, 2009 8:01 PM
Oh Dumb Dumb Janet, (Obune Censors, if I can be called Johnny Droid then Janet can be called a Dumb Dumb, OK?) or is that another John E name? And, Joe, "the mess" you folks are referring to came about because of two things: a housing crisis and rapid increase in energy costs. The reality is that with legislation signed by Bill Clinton and the 1990s and then covered up by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to give loans to people who could not pay those loans. That philosophy then carried over into all home loans, period, which was not a good plan for anyone to do. Homes also skyrocketed in price. No one is to blame for that, it happened in its own force.
Regarding energy, for years the Democrats filibustered ANY energy legislation that would assist in energy development within and around the U.S. This made us more dependent on foreign sources. Because the housing market crashed and all energy prices went through the roof, consumers and businesses suffered, which lead to where we are at today.
The Obama plan has been a bust. No stimulus, but spending on social re-engineering and pet projects. Meanwhile, Obama is selling more bonds to China and printing money like there is no tomorrow, which will lead to hyper-inflation and an even worse economy in years to come.
But, of course, all of this above your heads.
Posted by: John D | March 9, 2009 9:01 PM
Dan O, you seem to have the best point of view here. I really hope that both parties know that they have their b@lls on the line here, and the public will not take anymore of it. The pugs are getting their share (not as much as they should in my opinion), but if it goes to the dems head the will get hit hard too.
Posted by: Xcellentform | March 9, 2009 9:04 PM
OBAMA’S KNOWLEDGE GAP
Unfortunately Obama is showing the gap in his understanding of critical elements at the core of what drives America.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-third-tell.html
This administration does not understand that business and capitalists are not its enemies.
Posted by: James Raider | March 9, 2009 10:54 PM
Apparently many accept the Rush Limbaugh theory that this country can have only one functioning party at a time. When the Republicans were in power they did everything in their power to emasculate their opposition. Now that the Democrats are in power their only job is to complain and to hope for America's failure (John D's post is an example of that.)
Republican's unwillingness to participate makes them seem like they are effete reinforcing the impression that Bush gave the country that a Republican government can not function effectively. I for one will be loath to blame Obama for anything when the Republicans offer nothing but well worn platitudes as alternatives.
Obama's selection of Earl Devaney to oversee stimulus spending and to try to stop fraud is the most comprehensive approach to this problem that has ever been undertaken. The impression I have is that the administration is working hard, the Democrats in congress are muddling through and the Republicans are obstinately doing nothing. After eight years of Republican failure that seems like a risky tact that might be interpreted as unpatriotic.
Posted by: Ron M | March 9, 2009 11:10 PM
I see no reason why the Obama Administration would like to ruin this country. To what end? So that his girls will have no opportunities? I just don't get the reasoning behind the "We hope he fails" crowd except for Limbaugh. He at least earns money because of his ravings. How much do the rest of you profit from holding such negative thoughts? Or are you just the types that aren't happy unless you are complaining?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | March 10, 2009 7:03 AM
John D, why do still post that fiction? It's really getting old, you and the blame (it on Clinton and Barney) game.
Posted by: rupert | March 10, 2009 9:01 AM
[[I see no reason why the Obama Administration would like to ruin this country. To what end? So that his girls will have no opportunities? I just don't get the reasoning behind the "We hope he fails" crowd except for Limbaugh. He at least earns money because of his ravings. How much do the rest of you profit from holding such negative thoughts? Or are you just the types that aren't happy unless you are complaining?]]
Quick answer -- he wants the economy to fail so he can remake it into a country that reflects HIS views, with a market that spreads the wealth, so to speak.
Posted by: Lizzie | March 10, 2009 9:57 AM