There’s a new school of economic thought: Obaminableonomics.

Come to think of it, though, maybe there’s nothing so very new about this Obaminable economic school — after all, it just combines typical big-government redistribution with a few nominal nods in the direction of fiscal self-discipline.

You can get a concise idea of the Obaminable approach to economics from a headline that floated into my In Box the other day. I quote: “Obama Promotes Fiscal Restraint, Big Spending.” According to the reporter, the president-elect “wants to project fiscal restraint even as his economic team assembles a massive recovery package that could cost several hundred billion dollars.”

Huh?

Well, President-Elect Barack Obama thinks he erases the contradiction by contrasting his short-term plans with his long-term plans. Short-term, government must spend like there’s no tomorrow, because this is what we allegedly need to see happening if we are to regain confidence in our future. Yes, we absolutely must see an endless parade of babbling bureaucrats going hog-wild with taxpayer dollars on a wide array of ludicrous, unworkable schemes. Absolutely.

After that, though, will come the line-by-line budget review, the ruthless cutting out of bloat.

Well, any alcoholic will tell you that he can stop whenever he likes. Just so, our rulers keep putting off the restraint of fiscal restraint.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This is a tough season for me.

I’m not speaking of autumn. I like autumn. A gradual cooling is nice; the swirl of falling leaves, brightly colored, wondrous. It’s good to have a gentle transition to winter’s cold.

It’s the presidential electoral season that’s tough, both the before part and the after part.

As I have argued many times, the best hope for our republic lies in the action of local activists and leaders, not only demanding limited government but also showing how it’s done. If there’s no political market for freedom at the local level, it won’t flourish at the federal level, let me tell you.

And yet politicians and media emphasize the doings and sayings of folks at the top of the heap.

Worse yet, there seems a budding epidemic of president worship.

Oh, Obama is a smart guy, a good orator. He might end up being a great president. But he hasn’t even begun that job.

I’m just not very good at adoring politicians, of putting them on a pedestal, of pretending they’re superhuman. So, let’s cool it. Hero worship is more than nonsense, it’s idolatrous nonsense.

And yet too many politicians encourage the wrong kind of support. And receive it.

We need a version of hope that’s bigger than one man, a version that rests some responsibility on our actions as something other than voters and sycophants.

I am hoping this is possible. Say it with me: Yes, we can.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A clear majority of American voters — of all races — voted for Barack Obama. They now celebrate his victory.

Me? Not so much.

Oh, I like Obama’s talk about there not being red states and blue states, urging that we get past partisanship. I just don’t recall him ever bucking his own party.

I like that he talks about reviewing all government programs and ending those that don’t work, expanding those that do. But, after several years in Washington, he’s yet to name the first program he’d scrap. Don’t hold your breath now.

I like his bashing of the corrupt insider games in Washington. And then I see that those around him are insiders who have been running government for decades.

So, I’m still counting on you to save our country. Not Obama.

Yet, the election of a black man to the presidency does seem a fitting time to celebrate just how far we have come, and, moreover, to say thanks to those who risked so much to obtain equal rights and justice.

Let’s hear it for equal rights and justice!

Even in my short 48 years in this great country, I can recall a different day and time. Then, Americans lived in fear over the issue of race; then, black Americans could hardly be said to live in freedom.

We can rejoice in leaving that past far behind — whether we voted for the candidate who to some symbolizes it, or not.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Now what?

Well, now the governors are going to Washington to beg for bailouts. New York Governor Paterson and New Jersey Governor Corzine have schlepped their way up to the Hill to explain that they are “cutting all [they] can” from their bloated budgets, and to demand some “relief.”

I don’t believe that the notoriously corrupt governments of New York and New Jersey have pared their budgets to the bone. Or that the only way to cut another dollar is to throw some little old lady out onto the street.

I also don’t believe that the federal government has some magical way of getting money that state governments don’t have. It all comes from the same group of us taxpayers. Unless these governors are talking about taking cash from other states, where else would the money come from? Where but out of thin air — borrowing plus the trusty old printing press?

The feds are wearing the same blinkers as these gubernatorial guys. For example, the wizards at the Federal Reserve are struggling to bring interest rates to zero — as if cheap credit in the past had nothing to do with all the misbegotten easy mortgage loans spawning the present crisis.

Now, I put it to you: If fiscal irresponsibility can be increased from mammoth to infinity, will that, at last, solve the problem? If the Fed were to drop-ship crates of cash and credit cards onto every neighborhood in America, will that, at last, solve the problem?

Unbefreakinlievable.

We need some Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s not a chorus.

If you’ve been watching the “debate” over how best to con American voters into giving troubled banks $700 billion for bad loans, you might think it’s a chorus in the financial industry, especially from bank presidents.

You might assume they’re all shouting: GIVE US THE BAILOUT MONEY! NOW!

Not so. At least one banker dissents. John Allison, president of BB&T — with $136 billion in assets and 1500 branches — sent an open letter to Congress protesting the bad economics behind the bailout. He notes that his own company, though affected by the downturn, is in a much stronger position than many of BB&T’s competitors.

Why? Well, his bank did not join the orgy of bad lending, despite the enticement of the Federal Reserve’s easy credit policies and government pressure to give loans to bad-risk borrowers.

So why should the government reward the bad economic conduct of institutions that played along with the bad government policies? Why make it harder for the economy to recover by punishing sound and productive economic conduct with burdensome new government taxes?

Allison thinks the debate has suffered from domination, as he says, by those “financial institutions [that] made very poor decisions.”

Perhaps it’s because politicians have a whole lot more in common with foolish decision-makers than wise ones. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.