In his State of the Union address last night, President Barack Obama vowed to now make the economy his top priority while refusing to abandon his ambitious plans on health care, global warming, energy, and more. The president attempted to transform his public image from an academic elitist to a “populist.” He devoted more than half his speech to the ailing economy and growing joblessness saying “the devastation remains,” and demanded a “jobs bill” be on his desk “without delay.”
The president hardly mentioned his health care overhaul or anything substantive in the international arena. China’s growing frustration with the Obama Administration, Iran’s mocking of engagement, Korea’s continued defiance, and mixed signals over U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan provided the White House little praiseworthy material to use.
THE ECONOMY
President Obama defended his $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, now estimated at $862 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). His defense follows a CNN poll, earlier in the week, that showed “3 of 4 Americans” consider the 2009 jobs stimulus as dollars ”wasted.” The boondoggle legislation poured money into limited infrastructure projects that did not create long-term jobs or generate wealth creation. Moreover, the Obama Administration touted “saved and created” stimulus jobs from zip codes that did not exist which further eroded confidence as the year progressed.
President Obama also proposed a three-year spending freeze on 17% of the U.S. economy–a proposal that irritated Democrats while viewed as disingenuous by Republicans. Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, writing for the Wall Street Journal in “The Spending ‘Freeze’ That Isn’t,” Jan. 28, 2009, observed the following about President Obama’s plan.
“In last night’s State of the Union address President Obama proposed a three-year ’spending freeze’ on what amounts to one-sixth of the federal budget. Our biggest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, would be excluded. These changes are optical rather than substantive. Given the spending agenda that is already in place, we can expect to see large increases in the proportion of GDP that is spent by our government for years to come.” [bold emphasis from Newschaser]
Economists offered opinions ranging from quiet caution to vocal opposition over the president’s proposals. Politico article “Economists: Jobs Fix Won’t be Quick, Jan. 27, 2010, “reported that “While Obama’s emphasis on small business is new, many economists see the overall package as simply an extension of the $787 billion stimulus passed last year–and not a robust one, at that.”
Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, was also quoted by Politico:
“He’s [Obama] trying to turn his micro-economic policies into some macro-economic solution. He’s grasping at straws. We are just going to have to ride this out over the next six months. If things don’t get better in trade with China, we aren’t getting out of this. “
POPULISM OR ELITISM
The president, co-opted the language of many independent and Republican voters, by talking about short-term “spending,” “tax breaks,” and budget “deficits. The president noted, “Let’s try common sense. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.” In contrast, critics pointed out that President Obama’s spending binge for fiscal 2009 and 2010 running in the trillions is enormous and that any discussion of miniscule cuts in the low tens of billions cannot obscure that failure.
Tea Party Movement activists, many of whom are independents, viewed President Obama’s words with skepticism and cynicism. One major voice of the movement, the Tea Party Express, in a written statement reported on many media sites along the political spectrum including Reno Gazette Journal (RGJ.com) and Huffington Post noted,
“Tonight was a night of hot air…. We’ll start to believe Barack Obama when his actions match his words. Until then, it’s just more empty promises, and we’ve all heard far too many unfulfilled promises from the politicians in Washington. In our opinion, the best part of this speech was the end.” [bold emphasis by Newschaser]
VOTERS MORE AWARE OF OBAMAPOCRISY
Unlike candidate Obama in the 2008 whose political record was practically a blank slate, President Obama in 2009 provided an extensive media footprint. Voters are more savvy about the president’s policies, style, psychology and reactions toward America’s history, governance, and freedom of dissent.
The public draws information from a cocktail of news sources: national and local blogs, YouTube videos, cable news organizations (i.e., Fox, CNN), major newspapers (i.e., Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Washington Times), and specialized political journals and magazines. The modern mechanisms of newsgathering and dissemination have given voters a diverse field of opinion and immediate exposure to events allowing for a robust debate apart from White House spin. Communications today allows the public to be incredibly informed.
What does this mean? The average voter is aware of political antics and games far more than in the past. Less escapes the scrutiny of a thousand media eyes and ears. People are aware of the blatant lie faster than ever. One can witness arrogance, defiance, and narcissism in real-time.
IT IS THE POLICIES, NOT THE PRESENTATION
The president took an imperious tone toward everyone–both parties, lobbyists, banks, news commentators, the High Court, and even the protestations from the American public. The only blame President Obama placed upon himself involved his inability to make the case for his policies that voters have increasingly opposed.
AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven’s article captured Obama’s insular mindset in her article “Embattled Obama Declares in Speech, ‘I Don’t Quit,’” Jan. 27, 2010:
“The president was quoted for his ’share of the blame’ for not adequately explaining his plans to the public and connecting with their everyday worries. At the same time, he offered an unapologetic defense of pursuing the same agenda on which he won.” [bold emphasis by Newschaser]
Inadequacy to explain plans? No. President Obama is wrong in his analysis about why the voters are opposing his policies.
The grassroots electorate knows the policies are destructive in the long-term. Large numbers of independents, galvanized Republicans and disenfranchised Democrats are very familiar with the pros and cons of health care overhaul, cap-and-trade, and jobs stimulus success and failure. They reject such proposals because of cost, because of potential abuse, because of added damage that would chill economic recovery.
The voter does get it… President Obama does not. The electorate is angry over many events and issues. I note a handful below:
- zero transparency in government crafting of legislation as Obama promised on the campaign trail;
- poorly crafted health-care overhaul legislation;
- botched handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a terrorist and effective interrogation for intelligence on future attacks;
- the $862 boondoggle jobs stimulus bill; and
- affording terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens and the ability to be tried in U.S. courts in New York and not by military tribunal.
With great concern and sadness, I marvel at President Obama’s delusional arrogance that continues to snub the desires of the people. Regrettably, President Obama is a slave to an ideology involving heavy and intrusive centralized government that inexorably sucks the life from free markets. It is a philosophy alien to our national roots; it is a paradigm that arbitrarily chooses winners and losers by interrupting the natural force of competition and innovation to harvest the best services, best products and best employees. If President Obama continues along this trajectory, he will see a world turned upside down by voter revolt later this year, and also in 2012.
###
