Jim Geraghty pops the question on the Hugh Hewitt Show (Updated)

"When is it Obama's economy?"

No kidding, I was poised to pose that exact question here yesterday. Jim Geraghty dedicated a portion of Hugh Hewitt's radio show to the issue last night. Unfortunately, I only heard conservatives suggesting that Obama owns the economy right now. I think the answers from liberals and true Obamaniacs would be more interesting. We might see more stuff like a line from this letter sent by Anne Marie Jorgensen to the St. Petersburg Times:

President Obama is in earnest about righting our toppled monument to world power, but he cannot, in just a few months, right all the wrongs that took eight years to establish under the direction of the other political party.

The issue has some depth. After all, it is true that the economy will continue to feature President Bush's handiwork for some time into the following administration--along with features crafted by a Democrat-controlled Congress over the past two years. On the other hand, Obama has a significant influence on the economy even before he takes office based on the things he says and the market's reaction to his words and proposed policies.

One might hedge and refrain from calling this the Obama economy simply because the government hasn't assumed the type of control of the economy that Obama envisions in his plans. And that might take years.

And again on the other hand, making great big plans for change is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wall Street nervous in ways that shrink the value of markets.

That aspect of our picture serves up a harrowing conspiratorialist's view. The pain of going through the reworking of the economy beats down the economy to the point where any kind of stability--even a stability built on a degraded foundation--may result in the appearance of improvement.

Think of it like chemotherapy. The treatment usually degrades the appearance of the patient. Of course, with cancer treatment that effect is understood. In the current case, many are arguing that any difficulties the economy is experiencing are caused by the cancer (Bush).

I think Obama has had economics explained to him to the point that he knows markets abhor uncertainty. If he persists in blaming his predecessor when the markets balk at his policies, then I suggest it fits well with the picture of Obama as the bad type of Wilsonian demagogue. He would, in effect, be deliberately misleading the American people in order to fulfill his vision for the United States.


Update:

The Wall Street Journal had the same question in mind and published a poll on the topic the same day I posted this thread.

I've had trouble locating the full version, but Susan Davis has the skinny.

The poll focuses on the point at which the president is mostly responsible for the state of the economy. That's a slippery definition, in my opinion.