Pretty soon the problems of America will squarely be President Obama's problems.  The percentage of Americans who believe the President inherited our current problems with the economy is steadily dropping. 
So what should the President do?  How about focusing on job creation rather than healthcare?  And when I say "creation" I actually mean creation, not this amorphous jobs "saved" metric.
Voters are saying in recent polls that deficit reduction is more important than healthcare reform. Yet we're hearing much more from the Administration about healthcare than we are about the deficit.
But of course, healthcare reform seems to be some type of "Waterloo" that the media has made out to be a defining moment of the President's agenda.  But ramming through an expensive bill that doesn't really do much to cut healthcare costs will just make his polling numbers lower.  
Voters would like to see compromise on key points of healthcare to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan is very much focused on expanding coverage.  Many voters want something passed but less than a majority approve of the current bill.  Most people would prefer a less costly bill that incrementally improves coverage, provides reform for pre-existing conditions and experiments with tort reform and competition along state lines.  

This is a great piece in today's WSJ by a writer who describes why he will lose his health insurance under the House's latest bill.
Definitely worth a read.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

Maybe if Congress spends another $787 billion in the name of job creation, we can get the unemployment rate to 11 or 12%.
We've now had two very concrete examples of "stimulus" packages that didn't work - President Bush's $160 billion effort in February 2008 and President Obama's "super-size" version a year later.  Neither has made the smallest dent in unemployment.
Not only did the unemployment numbers get worse, but the hourly hours worked stayed the same.   So millions of Americans will have to start becoming full-time workers first before any new bodies get hired.
The White House says that the stimulus created as many as 1 million jobs.  No one doubted that this massive spending would create a few and "save" a few jobs.  But every new dollar in government spending is either taxed or borrowed from the private sector, which might have put it to better use.
If the government takes $1 from Paul, who might have invested it in a new business, and gives it to Peter, who buys a new lawn mower, the government records it as a net gain for economic growth via consumption.  But the economy is hardly more productive as a result.
The lesson here is for both parties.  Bush's cave-in to Democrats meant there was no debate in Washington over policies that might have produced a much better stimulus earlier on in the recession.  A stimulus needs to be immediate, permanent, and at the margin of the next dollar earned.
Prime example that we haven't learned our lesson is the extension of home buyer credits and the additional unemployment benefits.  Most home buyers would have bought a home anyways.  And most unemployed (including myself) received plenty of weeks of unemployment benefits that helped us get back on our feet as we found a new job.
The best thing people can do right now is to stop trying to ram through a health-care bill that slaps a 5.4% tax "surcharge" on anyone making more than $500,000 a year.  The Joint Tax Committee says that one-third of this tax increase will be paid by small business job creators who file their taxes under the individual income tax code.  With north of 10% unemployment, we shouldn't be slamming small businesses.
Once Congress gets out of the way, the job market will have a chance to recover on its own.

In September, the Administration apparently "changed course" (again), this time deciding that it WOULD reveal the names of White House visitors, except for a "small group" that in doing so would have national security concerns.  
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/09/obama_reverses_course_will_rel.html

Of course, after the initial campaign promise of real transparency, the Administration in June decided it WASN'T a good idea - (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/)

So now after we got all excited in September that we would actually be getting what was promised, the list revealed by the White House yesterday only had 110 names on it ?!?!?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33556933

Nothing has changed in Washington.


 

I stole the title from an article in today's WSJ by Joe Queenan.  I thought I would post the link here because it provides an interesting perspective on what people should expect from the President and I think I'm probably one of the few people here that reads the WSJ.

The key point is that people need to make sure they understand what the majority of the country wants, and not just what they want.  You can't honestly accuse the President of wimping out and caving to others unless what you want is what the majority of the country wants.  Sometimes we all need to take a step back and compare those two items.  He's governing for all of us, not just one or two of us.

See the link below, it's a quick read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489700704666232.html

 

I don't mind ex-Wall Street bankers entering the public sector as a second career.  But presumably they have sold their old company's stock and don't have any direct monetary ties to the banks any longer.  And if retired people like Alan Greenspan want to get rich on the speaking tour, be my guest.

But this Bloomberg article is very frightening.  People who are actively shaping policy, such as Gene Sperling and Lee Sachs, should not be getting any money from Wall Street, even if it's just for speeches.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abo3Zo0ifzJg

 

 

Senator Pelosi has said a lot of dumb things in the past, but this one is really amazing.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10646#frame_top

Now, she wasn't advocating it, per se.  Instead she said we should "put it on the table" and analyze it. 

But her poor reasoning for having a VAT is just astounding.  She thinks it will "level the playing field" and also wouldn't result in a tax increase on the middle-class.  It might not be a direct income tax increase on the middle class, but it would most definitely result in middle-class American families feeling the additional tax burden in the price of everything they buy.  We are not leveling the playing field by increasing the price of American goods versus foreign goods.  It will kill whatever manufacturing is left in America.

Why do people want to curtail the Government's ability to wiretap terrorist suspects when it helped catch people like Zazi?

The more Obama talks about healthcare, the lower his ratings will go.

Look at what he said on Wednesday night:

First he made an honest comment about Medicare - "our healthcare system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers" and "we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined".

So why would he use insolvency of a government program as a justification for ANOTHER health-care entitlement?  Certainly justifiable for people to doubt the success of the "public option".

He also pledges to finance this without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future".  But there's no way this health-care plan will be "self-financing" - it's both false and irrelevant.  It is false because the proposed tax increases will produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations.  It is also irrelevant because the proposed tax increases having nothing to do with healthcare and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.  

He says that we will cut "waste and abuse" from Medicare.  I guess this is the same waste and abuse that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.

He also told seniors not to listen to the "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts and told seniors they'd get the "benefits you've been promised".  So no cuts for anyone, except of course for the the seniors who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage.  Subsidy cuts are probably warranted and the program could be better designed.  But it's entirely reasonable for senior to fear cuts in their coverage because of the budget cuts for Advantage.

The President called for "civility" in debate and that means, to me, that BOTH sides should stop using the words "lies" or "myths" and start listening to the other one with some more humility.  That includes the President. 

Many bloggers here are outraged that conservatives spoke up about Obama's speech to students.  Such as:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/deep_brain_diarist/2009/09/children-survive-encounter-wit.php?ref=reccafe

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/elizabeth2/2009/09/stray-thought-about-the-indoct.php?ref=reccafe

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/athomeboy_2000/2009/09/obamas-speech-to-americas-stud.php?ref=reccafe

I was happy that Obama chose to speak with students and think the uproar on both sides is overdone.  (On the other hand, I do think the Dept of Education went a bit far with their lesson plans).  But given how many minority students struggle in school, we needed a pep talk from the first African-American President.

But why do all the Democrats seem to forget the Left's outrage when George HW Bush spoke to students?  And in that instance the Dept of Education didn't even have any "lesson plans".  Back then, the Democrats that controlled Congress ordered the GAO to investigate and Dick Gephardt, the House Majority Leader, accused Bush's speech of "paid political advertising".

So should Presidents be allowed to speak to students?  Apparently neither Democrats nor Republicans think so.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

 

 

Why is it so many people on here accuse people who disagree with Obama of being racists? It used to be I was just yelled at as being stupid, a "Faux" news disciple or not really "middle class".  Now most everyone's favorite slur is "you're a racist!"

If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan?  You're a racist.

If you think Van Jones made some moronic comments? You're a racist.

Say anything negative about Skip Gates?  You're a racist.

If you're Sen Chambliss and you use the word "humility"? You're a racist.

Even Peggy Noonan used the word "humility" this weekend, so I guess she's a racist too!  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574391153099885242.html)

I'm sure everyone has flipped through the Inspector General's report released Monday, although much was redacted.  http://documents.nytimes.com/c-i-a-reports-on-interrogation-methods#p=1

 

Interesting that on page 91, it says that "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete."

Yet in another section KSM is described as a "prolific" source of information.  To quote the report - "He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen who Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad's information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio."

Much is redacted but it sure seems that since the use of the waterboard KSM was more cooperative.  And the report says that definitively with respect to Abu Zubaydah

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, apparently the SSA doesn't think that having a conference at the Biltmore might be a little over the top during the economic crisis we're in.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/07/12/20090712biz-tourism0712.html

I hope the head of the SSA gets fired for this one.

Perfect example of how Congress is out of touch and too concerned with their own status.  Senator Boxer is so petty and obviously suffers from low self-esteem.  Congress will never get anything done if they keep up attitudes like Senator Boxer's.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/17/please-call-me-senator/

A new Gallup poll shows that "Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate and 21% liberal.  This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the US since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

These results show, in my opinion, that America is a center-right nation.  It also highlights the impressive personal victory of Obama's election but it was not an ideological turning point for America.  It also highlights that the Republican party is in significantly worse shape than the conservative movement.

Our President is extremely popular and I do not underestimate the value in this.  He is both liked and trusted by the public, which gives him the latitude currently to act in ways that others could not.  And Obama is exceptionally good at making his policies sound different than they are.   Still, Obama is governing to the left of where he ran, in a nation that is significantly more conservative than it is liberal.  So while much of the public has been willing to defer to him so far, I do not think the public's patience is endless.  If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our probems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices - the political climate can change very rapidly.  There's only so long that unemployment can rise but he can claim that he has "saved" jobs.  There's only so long that people can think that their taxes aren't going up - just wait for the day that your healthcare benefits start to be taxed and your utility bills go through the roof because of the new cap-and-trade taxes.

The President remains in a very strong position, but he is far from invincible.