Obama's Performance (so far)
 

I did not really expect much change with Obama's presidency but he seems to be going overboard to keep business as usual. I am surprised that he threw in the towel so early on his campaign rhetoric of CHANGE. Perhaps his party schooled him on the way things really work in the executive branch.

He promised he would not raise taxes on the poor and middle class but the first bill he signed (SCHIP) gets 90% of it's funding from the middle class and lower income groups.

He promised higher ethics but three of his nominations were/are for people who cheated on their taxes. I don't believe the "it was just an honest mistake" bull, especially from the new head of the IRS.

He said he would not sign bills with earmarks in them but the so called Stimulus Bill seems to contain many items that would otherwise be considered earmarks.

I think if people expect radical change within 20 days, they will going to be sorely disappointed regardless of what takes place.

With regards to the tax cheats, the problems surfaced through the vetting process, so it is not like they were trying to hide that.

nothing in the stimulus bill is an earmark

Right... because STD Education is pivotal to the economic recovery? The whole thing is full of special interest pork.

Thats my biggest problem with the whole thing....it is 90% earmarks and pork passed off as economic stimuli. CCC-type programs are one thing, but these are getting a little out of hand IMO

i was arguing semantics. pork projects and earmarks aren't always the same thing. earmarks are spending projects that are tacked onto other unrelated bills at the 11th hour in hopes of having them passed without debate. the usual tactic is to have your controversial project tacked onto a crucial bill (like defense spending). everything in this stimulus bill is in the main body of the bill. i'm not defending the projects, just clearing up the terminology

Hey, it creates/secures jobs. And it sure beats abstinence programs.

In terms of "pork," this stimulus bill has significantly less than the bail out last semester. And while people often can find programs that make little sense, the key is that these programs a) make up about a couple of percentage points of the total package and b)any spending in a recession generates economic activity. Keynes famous example was hiring two crews, one to dig holes, the other to cover them up.

The key problem, however, is something that no one can do anything about now, just remember not to repeat in the future: do not run deficits during economic expansions, especially if there are signs of a bubble.


Ps: if anyone is interested in what the republicans consider "waste," here is a list
What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com
add it up and see what share of the stimulus bill it makes up. The only republican who seems to be making sense these days is Greg Mankiw, and that is because he is an economist first. Other key conservatives writing worthwhile comments are Gary Becker and Richard Posner.

Sore loser say what?

I will love to see how he does, so far it is early, I do not love the new stimulus plan (i did not love the old one either), pork is an understatement and we the people have to pay in the long run.

I do have a interesting site that follows the obama campaign promises, I am sure people may contend certain promises whether fulfilled or not but it is interesting to look at.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

lets see. we went from a message of hope to one of fear, again. a promise of no lobbyists, he hired 17 in 14 days. I'm not thrilled with the crap in the so called stimulis. It isn't looking good.

small thinking.

i think obama has moved quickly in some areas to push the bush period into a richly deserved oblivion---but on the economic situation, the unravelling is happening at such speed that it hardly makes sense to snipe at the various shortfalls in the stimulus package: i would think it makes more sense for folk to hope that it has positive effects, at least if keeping your job is a priority.

obama has been dealt a remarkably shitty hand after 30 years of neoliberal incoherence.
it's funny watching folk who still think about the world through the same framework that is responsible for the great unraveling struggle to process it.
what's not funny is that after 30 years of neoliberal ideological hegemony, folk here who are in that position are not the exception. you have the same problem in congress. you have the same problem in the administration.

so i think obama needs to go further to break with the sad old neoliberal legacy and everything it stands for. but it's unreasonable to expect that break to emerge full-blown in less than a month.

The reality is, Obama is testing keynesian economics for the very first time ever. Not even the post "great depression" war-economy boost was true Keynes--it was the boom AFTER the war that brought us out, the war-economy numbers were artificially high, and didn't reflect any real economic relief for the people.

This is a MASSIVE change in how economies are run. It can't possibly be overstated how huge a sea change this is. Not everyone agrees with it, I suppose, but that's politics. You can't accuse the guy of "not change".

I know it is early and he hasn't had much time to deal with the economic crisis but based on his campaign promises I would have expected him to at least try to be true to his word in the beginning of his administration.

- On raising taxes of the middle class and lower income groups:

He could have said "I know expanding SCHIP is a good thing, but go back to the drawing board and come up with funding that is not mostly taken from the lower income groups".

- On Ethics

He should say "anyone who has cheated on their taxes will not be a part of my administration, no exceptions". The fact that one of them is now head of the IRS borders on the ridiculous.

- On the Stimulus Package

I don't know what to make of this bill. It seems to have a lot of earmark type special interest items but I guess an argument can be made that even a bridge to nowhere creates some jobs.

The beneficiary of the SCHIP program are the lower and middle class income groups, even more so with 2 million jobs lost last year. The program's approval level is among the highest of any government program. The overwhelming majority of the public wanted it expanded after two Bush vetoes. And 4 million additional kids (one fifth of whose parents are probably smokers, using the general population stats on smokers) will be eligible for health coverage.

Its easy for anyone at any income level to avoid this tax "increase".....QUIT SMOKING. It will even have the side benefit of improving your health.

And the vast majority of tax relief in the stimulus bill is targeted to the lower and middle class income groups.

I think you're are nitpicking here....sloppy vetting does not demonstrate a lack of ethics.

No one likes the idea of a $800+ billion dollar stimulus bill.....the options are to do nothing, return to the failed supply side policy of creating stimulus through tax cuts favoring the wealthiest or attempting to stimulate the economy by spending on job creation. When you spend on job creation..that money is an earmark to a city/state or an industry.

Absolutely, there are questionable projects included...a very small percentage. And I agree that they should be removed. But again, nitpicking, IMO.

I think the fact that he was open to restructuring the stimulus bill so that it is now about 60% spending/40% tax cuts was a sincere attempt at bi-partisanship.....another change from the last administration.

I was also pleased to see:

the FOIA policy reversed with a return to a presumption for releasing documents rather than searching for any legal justification to withhold documents from the public.

the cancellation of Bush's recent "fire sale" of oil/gas exploration leases in proximity to national parks

the cancellation of the Mexico City gag rule on restricting health care aid through USAID

the signing of an equal pay protection law for women to "fix" a bad Supreme Court decision, a bill that Bush had threatened to veto if it came to his desk in his last days in office

stricter ethics rules for the revolving door between government and industry

the intent to close Gitmo and to hold the CIA more accountable for renditions....

But to make any judgement of the Administration after three weeks is premature.

Even the earmarks aren't as bad as other things he's trying to ram through Congress before the country realizes what's going on. As of today, this piece of shit (not my words--I believe it was a US Senator who said it) had the support of only 37% of the population, and the favorables become fewer every day. Congressional members don't even read the things they sign under NORMAL circumstances. Maybe they aren't aware of these amnesty provisions, but the public needs to know that:

Illegal aliens will be given legal status within 24 hours, even without a complete background check. No potential for terrorism there!

US taxpayers will pay for the attorneys to represent the illegal aliens.

"Temporary" visas can be renewed indefinitely (doesn't that sound like "permanent?")

Illegal alien gang members are eligible for amnesty (there are at least 30,000 of them).

The US taxpayers will pay for education and health care for Mexicans IN MEXICO.

Illegal aliens don't have to pay back taxes, but they ARE eligible for the EIC.

Fast track for SPP.

In-state tuition for illegal aliens, but not for US citizens.

Illegals get to cut in front of people who have applied to enter legally.

Amnesty for illegals who were ordered deported.

Learning English not required until the ninth year of amnesty.

This is why he selected Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's chief of staff,to be the CIA director. Rahm Emanuel, a senior Clinton advisor, is the new chief of staff.

Then there's Robert Reich, Eric Holder (he of Marc Rich fame), Carol Browner, Susan Rice, and Rahm Emanuel (This is a gentle soul who once wrote in Campaign and Elections magazine that “the untainted Republican has not yet been invented” and who two years ago — according to a book about Mr. Emanuel (“The Thumpin’ ” by Naftali
Bendavid) — announced to his staff that Republicans are “bad people who deserve a two-by-four upside their heads.”

He also chose Hillary to be Secretary of State. No conflict of interest there with her husband's fundraising :orly:, but she could eliminate the deficit just by investing in commodities for the country. That, and organize a mass donation of used underwear to charity.


The cream of the crop, though, are Daschle and Geithner. Daschle, of course, "isn't a lobbyist," but he was paid millions to represent a lobbying firm that was paid $16 million by some of the most powerful health care interests. What better choice for HHS could there be?

Actually, Geithner takes the cake. A tax cheat in charge of the IRS. He didn't even pay all the taxes he admitted owing; just the ones couldn't get out of paying. That's classic.

In only two weeks, Obama has selected the most corrupt appointees in history. That's not the kind of "change" we were expecting. God knows what he can do with a month or two under his belt.

Perfect. Now I remember why I hardly come here anymore.

Can you please point me to the specific language in the bill for these "provisions"

Thanks!

Im with dc dux. Could you point to the specific bills/acts that provide for this?

Marv...you can find the Senate version on the Senate Finance Committee site

see:
Complete legislative text of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Just give me a page number please!

i just waded through hundreds of pages of the senate package before my eyes went a bit squirrely and couldn't find anything like that list of sentences that marv posted either.
maybe i was looking in the wrong place, however, by reading the actual legislation.
who knows?

but yeah, pages please.

Glad to see you are holier than though on taxes. I trust you are equally mad at Sarah Palin who did the same thing as Tom Daschel but instead of Tom decided she just wouldn't pay those taxes (if you don't know what i'm talking about look into her use of the government plane/per deim for personal trips for her family).

Also Obama is the President not a Senator. He doesn't write the bills, he can apply pressure and in the end he can either sign or veto.

Finally Obama has already opened up the government a lot more and added a lot of transparency.

So instead of increasing their taxes directly he signed a bill that taxes a product which will result in 90% of the funding coming from the middle class and lower income groups. At the very least this does not seem to follow the spirit of his no tax increases on the lower income groups. This does not seem like the Obama we heard on the campaign. I don't understand why he did not require/insist that they fund this bill with money from the higher income groups. I did not believe McCain and the Republicans during the campaign when they warned the middle class that he would raise their taxes.

Also I believe he supported some of his nominees even after their tax dodging became widely known.

when he talked about not increasing taxes on the middle and lower classes, he was clearly and obviously referring to income taxes.

I would consider it an optional user fee that contribute directly to public health.....not a broken campaign promise.

I thought this was the kind of thing he was going to change. The kind of political trickery that says to the lower income groups, we won't tax you directly but we will pass bills that result in getting your money anyway.

flstf....there was no political trickery.

Obama's public position from the start of his campaign was that he would sign the SCHIP bill that Bush vetoed twice.....not change the funding....sign the same bill.

dc_dux....You are probably right. I guess I expected that he would use his political capital to target the funding away from the lower income groups, even sin taxes.

this is an obvious problem for anyone who actually wants to promote freedom and liberty. The government is not supposed to have authority to tax activities higher than others in order to prohibit one that isn't healthy. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

This is why the single payer health package and universal healthcare should be discouraged at all costs. It will only encourage nanny staters to increase taxes on unhealthy activities so as to prohibit them, thereby forcing others to live lifestyles that only they approve of.

You mean like owning and using firearms? They ask about that a lot on those health questionnaires.

I googled some of the phrases he quoted and found some blogs dating from 2007 with the exact phrasing. My guess is it's Limbaugh bullshit, but who knows...

flstf: would it help you any if I pointed out that Obama is still an active smoker, and so will himself be contributing to SCHIP's funding?

I'm thinking it sounds more like Michael Savage bullshit. When it comes to illegal immigrants, he makes Limbaugh look like a warm and fuzzy teddy bear.

A thought occurred to me this morning... and it may be material for another thread, but...

What kind of fucking monster looks at federal bailout legislation and says, "Make federal buildings energy efficient!? No way! Stabilize declining neighborhoods? Not on my watch!" I mean, how can anyone REALLY have a problem with the things the stimulus bill actually wants to pay for (which are, by the way, VASTLY different from the right-wing mythology of what's in the bill), and still be able to sleep at night? What the hell is government FOR if not things like that?

that's one.
-----Added 9/2/2009 at 08 : 12 : 53-----
mayhaps you should actually read the constitution first? It tells everyone pretty much just what the federal government has authority to do. you might find it 'illuminating'. but then again, you probably just think we're all monsters because we don't agree with you.

Must we really have "owning and using firirearms" brought into every poitical discussion here?

There is no gun control legislation hidden in the stimuls bill or the newly enacted SCHIP extension!

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 08 : 28 : 36-----
Here we go again...another dispute about Constitutional authority and, I assume, the general welfare clause. Congress HAS the authority....whether you agree with it or not.

Where we might agree is that many of the "extras" and "wish list programs" in the stimulus bill should probably go through the normal authorization and appropriations process rather than be tucked into the stimulus bill.

But its a judgement call. I can see how COPS program funding will create jobs (thousands of new cops on the street). Its more of a stretch for programs like neighborhood stabilitization, energy efficiency, or health/wellness.

the three elements dc highlighted above seem to sum up the thinking behind the package:
a) the COPS thing breaks with the militarized los angeles mode of policing and goes back to a more neighborhood oriented mode, which required more cops walking regular beats in communities. it has never been obvious that the l.a. even made sense---treating the population as an enemy, organizing around swat teams etc.---this reduces feedback loops that connect the cops and neighborhoods---and no number of television cop shows can sell that away.

b) neighborhood stabilization is self-evidently about trying to stabilize property values. if you think that the real estate problem is *the* driver behind this mess we're in---and personally, i think it was more a trigger than anything else, that the problems it exposed/set into motion are much bigger---then it is obvious that many things need to be tried in order to stop the freefall of real estate values---too much is tied to them, for better or worse---much of which has to do with a decentralization strategy (real or apparent) from the neoliberal right to shift power away from the state by channelling more revenues to localities via the "ownership society".

lowering interest rates on mortgages will help in some areas to generate velocity and so prop up prices---easing restrictions on refinancing will have a huge effect, far more than any tax cut....and programs like neighborhood stabilization in cities particularly. it'll require more, no doubt, but it's hard to know what does and does not work until there is something that is or is not working.

c) energy and the transformation of how it's consumed is a medium-to-long run priority for the administration, and is one of the areas that is good for them to have because it gives a direction to a package that is, to my mind, still too reactive.

but it's better than nothing. the right should really stop trying to redefine it's brand and start thinking about the problems that their own economic ideology (put into practice) has generated--and get out of the way.

that said, i am not at all sure that this package is either comprehensive enough, nor does it have an adequate design to it.
but freefall is ugly, and that's what's at stake.

and I don't believe that crompsin or I were bringing gun control up as an issue. What we DID bring up though, is the premise that professions like doctors and insurance companies are asking questions about gun ownership and basing their rates or medical diagnosis on that answer. It is just another form of societal manipulation through intimidation. Which is the same thought process as those who base higher taxes on disliked activities.


general welfare can HARDLY be thought of as anything less than something that benefits the general public as a whole and NOT someones pet projects. As to p utting more cops on the street, that is supposed to be a state responsibility, not federal.

just out of curiousity, what do you imagine the functions of welfare to be, dk?

Well, the issue of "sin taxes" and the issue of invasive questionnaires are different ones. And in fact as long as medicine is private and for profit, insurance companies and doctors will ask that, and they should. The only way to price insurance in a private market is to learn about all the risky behavior. If you don't like that they ask about it and price accordingly, then you shouldn't like it that they ask people about smoking habits, drinking habits, medical history, etc, etc. Soon, they end up without a way of pricing insurance, and therefore pull out of the market. Then the only solution becomes single payer healthcare system.

Now, I am all for universal healthcare and a single payer system. It seems like you are not. Just keep in mind that as long as its a private market, they have all the right in the world to ask those questions.

Despite the actuarially indisputable fact that gun owners are vastly more likely than non-gun-owners to be involved in gun-related injury?

I'm not personally pro- or anti-gun, but the fact is, if I'm an insurance company and I want to know what level of risk I'm taking on your policy, I want to know your likelihood of getting your head blown off and one way of getting at that is to determine your gun ownership. It's not politics or some tin-hat "societal manipulation": it's BUSINESS. You know, that thing you think is GOOD and will SAVE US?

I'm talking about insurance companies here. I don't know anything about the "doctors basing their diagnosis" part of your post. That sounds like a response to some anecdote I haven't heard.