And occasionally, as my friend and debate partner knows, I take issue with the comments -- or at least try to clarify the debate.
I wrote about how the federal government is running up huge deficits while pandering to the voters, a process that is not sustainable. The longer the fix is postponed the harder it will be to implement and with more problematic consequences.
Daniel responded:
So he should put the financial house in order... in the midst of a recession? This is one issue where, right now, he has to lie - for the good of the country. Your financial system is not in order, and cannot be put in order by cutting spending (now or taking-effect-in-the-future); nor can it be put in order by raising taxes, both of which take money out of the system.
I agree that turning off the stimulus and job assistance money now would make a bad problem worse. However, there are features in the US federal budget that are not sustainable and have been known not to be sustainable for many years, much longer than the current recession. The largest of these items is the Social Security system. It was sold to the voter (way back in the 1930s) as a tax on current income that would fund retirement. The higher a person's income over working years the higher the benefit later. It is actually a system where current workers fund current retirees. At the beginning one retiree was supported by 16 workers (if my memory is accurate). Today each retiree is supported by maybe 3 workers. The Baby Boom generation, a big demographic bump, is starting to retire, making the whole thing more precarious. There are (politically unpalatable) solutions to the situation -- delay the retirement age, reduce the payout to the richer beneficiaries, or taxing the payout as regular income.
My point of the original posting is that the sooner this situation is addressed the less catastrophic it will be for those affected. Addressing it is independent of the recession and changes, if done right, will take effect a few years from now when the recession is (hopefully) over. But Congress has rarely shown that much foresight.
Daniel also responded to my posting that the Washington Spectator thinks the Obama presidency will be mediocre:
Um.
It sounds like the Spectator's simply wrong.
See, this Congress/Presidency partnership has been the most successful since Reagan, according to this.
Just because the big-name issues haven't been successful doesn't mean other issues have failed; and just because Obama's been more bipartisan than some believe he should (remember, he's got to appeal to moderates, independents, and even conservatives who voted him into office, and he represents the whole country, not just liberals) doesn't mean he's failed.
Don't believe everything you read!
I hope by now, Daniel, that you've seen I am very skeptical about a lot of what I discuss here (and my friend and debate partner is good at prodding when I'm not skeptical enough). So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
I've been reading Newsweek for about 30 years, and have come to expect it's skeptical eye. But even there I don't always agree. I've now been reading the Washington Spectator for maybe 3 years. If it didn't pass the skeptic's test I would not have renewed beyond the 1 year gift from my father.
So, back to the Spectator's claim and opinion. Over the last year, Obama has indeed been outfoxed by the GOP in the manner described in my post. His blunders with health care reform still might doom the legislation. If he continues to be outfoxed by the GOP I would agree with the Spectator that he should be ranked as an average president.
Daniel cites a Washington Post article that says Obama is the most successful president since Reagan.
I don't know the political persuasion of the Post, so my skepticism is only on alert. If it was the Detroit News, whose conservatism is blatant, my skeptic meter would be redlining. Might the Post have a political motive for pumping up the president's image? I won't guess.
Now to the claim itself. Actually, the Post article says, "Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson." It leaves me wondering how success is measured. Quite a claim. Even so, the *Post* bases it's claim on these accomplishments:
The big stimulus bill not only started the economy on the rebound, it included provisions for tax cuts, energy conservation, renewable-energy production, green technologies, help in home buying, college tuition, health information technology, research into effectiveness of health treatments, education reforms, clean water, smart electrical grid, and broadband internet expansion. Not bad for one bill.
Additional successful bills include: children's health insurance, improved oversight of bailout funds, FDA regulation of tobacco, land conservation, credit card bill of rights (it took me a while to figure out the bill that came today was not accusing me of missing a payment), and defense procurement. Not mentioned in the article is employment non discrimination, protecting gays in the workplace. Still in the works are carbon cap-and-trade, financial regulation, and health care reform.
Yes, that is quite a lot accomplished. Thanks for pointing it out.
The purpose of the Post article wasn't just to catalogue the legislative successes of the last year, but to highlight the disparity between that success and the grumbling by the general public. Some of the reasons:
We're still in that recession and unemployment is still high. If a prez. can claim he is responsible for a good economy, he gets blame when it is bad.
People are mad that the banks got bailed out.
The negotiations of the health care bill have been unusually public, rancorous, and messy.
Not all of those legislative successes have wide public support. Some people don't like the basic idea. Some don't like the amount of government intrusion. Some don't like the bloated deficit.
The stimulus bill was put together without anyone selling it to the public in a meaningful way and the result seemed to be the typical pork-barrel ways that Obama campaigned against.
Given the way the GOP has stirred up the public and been obstructionist, Congress as a whole has become unpopular and taken the president's popularity down with them. The popular legislation is dismissed because it came from unpopular legislators.
Now with Dems losing that 60th seat in the Senate, all that success of the first year might not continue. If Obama can't figure out how to get legislation passed with a 59 seat majority -- the Washington Spectator has it's doubts -- there could be real Senate gridlock, nothing will get done and Obama will deservedly be tagged as -- mediocre.
"Addressing it is independent of the recession and changes, if done right, will take effect a few years from now"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that's not the case - because of the nature of the change, future changes have repercussions now. Whilst cuts in government spending in the future happen now, unless you're planning to massively cut social security then you're talking tax hikes; and that scares people in the here-and-now.
"If Obama can't figure out how to get legislation passed with a 59 seat majority [...] Obama will deservedly be tagged as -- mediocre"
Yes, this is true (though Lieberman tends to make me call it a 58-seat majority and one wildcard); however, we've not seen that much time since the election of Scott Brown, and already we've seen some movement - for instance, the withdrawal of many of Sen. Shelby's 70 holds shows that the Dems can (at least sometimes) push their opponents to do what they want.
I think we need to give Obama a chance, and not buy into the progressive miracleworker imagery that, yes, he used to get elected; but it wasn't all he used, and he advertised his bipartisanship and moderation as well. This is not a liberal President. This is a moderate President with liberal leanings.