The First 100 Days
As we approach the 100 day marker in Obama's presidency, has reality matched the hype? An objective analysis seems to indicate no. He has a reasonably strong personal approval rating; although, as I point out in a March 9, 2009 entry titled, "Popular(ity) Misconception," in many respects, it is at or below the level of many other presidents since WWII. More foreboding, however, is the large disconnect between his personal popularity and the popularity of his specific policies. Poll after poll show significant gaps
It's hard to deny that he has benefited from favorable coverage. The mainstream media's cheerleading has no doubt goosed his approval rating to some extent. Unfortunately for Obama, the populace tends to be quite a bit more circumspect when it comes to the issues central to their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren. And, at the end of the day, it's policy that matters.
Despite a convincing election victory and a traditional honeymoon period, perceptive Obama faithful must see some ominous signs on the horizon. Most noteable, I believe, is that a supposed great orator and charismatic leader is having tremendous difficulty getting a material number of people, beyond his most zealous supporters, to sign on to the specifics of his agenda. Sure, many like the broad outline, but blanch when the details (e.g. deficits, government control, etc.) become more clear. More troubling is that Obama doesn't appear to have the fight in him to aggressively push for implementation of his policy vision in its pure form. Instead, he has been quite willing to drop items off his priority list (e.g. carbon tax), water them down substantially (e.g. education reform), and consider parliamentary gimmicks (e.g. reconciliation process that requires simple majority in Senate, rather than supermajority) for passage of controversial aspects of his program (e.g. budget, healthcare, etc).
Compare and contrast the aforementioned with Reagan's effort to achieve comprehensive tax reform, one of the two central priorities of his presidency (along with fighting Communism). Bear in mind that Reagan, unlike Obama, was operating with substantial minorities in the House (177 to 258) and Senate (45 to 55). Notwithstanding this daunting disadvantage, Reagan worked effectively with key Democrats and persuasively took his case to the American people. As such, Congress voted in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 passed the House and Senate by votes of 292 to 136 and 74 to 23. In fact, the Senate passed its version (before it went to conference committee) by a vote of 97 to 3. Reagan's approval rating at the time was 62%, roughly in line with Obama's today. Moreover, Reagan's achievement came halfway through a lame duck second term—when such sweeping legislation is generally viewed to be next to impossible to pass (how many times have we heard Obama has to act now because it will be prohibitively difficult to do it later).
Come the 100 day anniversary on Wednesday, the media will likely be bombarding us with stories of Obama's performance—most of which will likely be upbeat in nature. Draw your own conclusions. Certainly, there have been positives. Many are intangible. But, what about specifics?
Has the foreign policy ball been advanced? Sure, we've made some overtures in the name of improving our moral standing, but what has it gotten us? More foreign troops in Afghanistan? More stimulus spending in Europe and Asia? Reduced threats from Iran and North Korea?
How about domestically? Do you like the idea of doubling the deficit in 5 years and tripling it in 10? Do you want a considerably bigger government with more direct control over private enterprise? Do you favor putting impediments in the way of those most responsible for economic expansion, rather than providing them with incentives to spend, invest, and create jobs? Do you think it's odd that the President hasn't gotten more traction for his policies at what should be the peak of his popularity? Is it reasonable that he has paid nothing more than lip service to bipartisanship—a key theme of his campaign and reason why many voted for him?
As I said, it's all about the policies. I'm largely in favor of Obama's focus on healthcare, education, and energy. It's his government-first approach I find disquieting. If you agree or disagree with the policy specifics, it is incumbent to send that message clearly; otherwise, personal popularity will be used as a proxy to push through an agenda that may be out of touch with the sensibilities of a large percentage of the population.
It's hard to deny that he has benefited from favorable coverage. The mainstream media's cheerleading has no doubt goosed his approval rating to some extent. Unfortunately for Obama, the populace tends to be quite a bit more circumspect when it comes to the issues central to their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren. And, at the end of the day, it's policy that matters.
Despite a convincing election victory and a traditional honeymoon period, perceptive Obama faithful must see some ominous signs on the horizon. Most noteable, I believe, is that a supposed great orator and charismatic leader is having tremendous difficulty getting a material number of people, beyond his most zealous supporters, to sign on to the specifics of his agenda. Sure, many like the broad outline, but blanch when the details (e.g. deficits, government control, etc.) become more clear. More troubling is that Obama doesn't appear to have the fight in him to aggressively push for implementation of his policy vision in its pure form. Instead, he has been quite willing to drop items off his priority list (e.g. carbon tax), water them down substantially (e.g. education reform), and consider parliamentary gimmicks (e.g. reconciliation process that requires simple majority in Senate, rather than supermajority) for passage of controversial aspects of his program (e.g. budget, healthcare, etc).
Compare and contrast the aforementioned with Reagan's effort to achieve comprehensive tax reform, one of the two central priorities of his presidency (along with fighting Communism). Bear in mind that Reagan, unlike Obama, was operating with substantial minorities in the House (177 to 258) and Senate (45 to 55). Notwithstanding this daunting disadvantage, Reagan worked effectively with key Democrats and persuasively took his case to the American people. As such, Congress voted in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 passed the House and Senate by votes of 292 to 136 and 74 to 23. In fact, the Senate passed its version (before it went to conference committee) by a vote of 97 to 3. Reagan's approval rating at the time was 62%, roughly in line with Obama's today. Moreover, Reagan's achievement came halfway through a lame duck second term—when such sweeping legislation is generally viewed to be next to impossible to pass (how many times have we heard Obama has to act now because it will be prohibitively difficult to do it later).
Come the 100 day anniversary on Wednesday, the media will likely be bombarding us with stories of Obama's performance—most of which will likely be upbeat in nature. Draw your own conclusions. Certainly, there have been positives. Many are intangible. But, what about specifics?
Has the foreign policy ball been advanced? Sure, we've made some overtures in the name of improving our moral standing, but what has it gotten us? More foreign troops in Afghanistan? More stimulus spending in Europe and Asia? Reduced threats from Iran and North Korea?
How about domestically? Do you like the idea of doubling the deficit in 5 years and tripling it in 10? Do you want a considerably bigger government with more direct control over private enterprise? Do you favor putting impediments in the way of those most responsible for economic expansion, rather than providing them with incentives to spend, invest, and create jobs? Do you think it's odd that the President hasn't gotten more traction for his policies at what should be the peak of his popularity? Is it reasonable that he has paid nothing more than lip service to bipartisanship—a key theme of his campaign and reason why many voted for him?
As I said, it's all about the policies. I'm largely in favor of Obama's focus on healthcare, education, and energy. It's his government-first approach I find disquieting. If you agree or disagree with the policy specifics, it is incumbent to send that message clearly; otherwise, personal popularity will be used as a proxy to push through an agenda that may be out of touch with the sensibilities of a large percentage of the population.
Chuck wrote: “I’m largely in favor of Obama’s focus on healthcare, education, and energy”.
While I agree these topics should be a primary focus, I do not agree with the direction that Obama is heading with these topics. I particularly don’t like the socialized healthcare agenda. True, it would be great to have everyone have universal healthcare, I for one, would benefit tremendously since I have no employer to provide insurance for me. But universal healthcare is not feasible. It is a pie in the sky dream. Procedures cost money, lots of money. If healthcare is considered a “right” everyone would to be guaranteed the best medical care possible, but no one would receive the best care. It would be impossible to fund treatment for everyone. All would receive middle of the road healthcare. A rationing of healthcare would have to ensue.
The majority of one’s health expense is spent in the last six months of life. If we are to provide an X-ray for a 4th grader who fell off the slide, then that would be less care for the 92 yr. old who needs medication to think clearly. Who makes that call? Whose life is worth more? One could do the cost-benefit analysis and answer these questions. But it still means rationing the most expensive and least beneficial treatments.
So far, healthcare is not a constitutional right. It may not be fair that some can afford to have hip replacements this year and others have to wait, or live with the pain. I don’t have a great healthcare plan. Therefore, I try to maintain a healthy lifestyle (albeit jumping off the occasional balcony). I have no dental coverage- so I brush and floss religiously. I would rather do this than have the government tell me not to worry, they’ll replace my teeth, just wait in line until you are about to die.
Reply to this
Time to play devil's advocate. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you do need to think of both sides in these case (thus, my direct arguments, rather than any areas in which I agree...) Would love to hear your thoughts.
Do you like the idea of doubling the deficit in 5 years and tripling it in 10?
-Isn't that what Reagan effectively did? The deficit skyrocketed under his leadership. While he had the cold war to deal with, Obama has to deal with the largest economic crisis in history. Both require(d) a lot of spending.
Do you want a considerably bigger government with more direct control over private enterprise?
-No, but tough times require tough measures. When private investment doesn't fulfill demand in the economy, the public needs to make up the difference. That is unless 25% unemployment sounds more attractive. The question will be if the public spending can be reigned in when things eventually get back on track.
Do you favor putting impediments in the way of those most responsible for economic expansion, rather than providing them with incentives to spend, invest, and create jobs?
- No, hence why I like the willingness to spend public money and increase taxes. This will hopefully prevent permanent impairment of closed factories / unemployed resources in the short run, which has a direct impact on the long run.
Do you think it's odd that the President hasn't gotten more traction for his policies at what should be the peak of his popularity?
- No, his first 100 days has coincided with the biggest economic crisis in history. That is where the focus has turned. He also inherited irresponsible spending at the tail-end of the Bush Presidency / Paulson Treasury (i.e. $350+ billion in TARP with no oversight).
Is it reasonable that he has paid nothing more than lip service to bipartisanship—a key theme of his campaign and reason why many voted for him?
- It goes both ways. Definitely disappointed, but not sure the Republican party has been any better.
Reply to this
Very good questions, all.
Regarding deficits, I think there are some key differentiators between Reagan and Obama; although, it is admittedly much too early to judge Obama. Obama's deficit increases appear to be systemic (i.e. massive expansions to entitlements that recur and grow year after year), Reagan's were not. Reagan more than doubled revenue during his eight years in office. Obama's policies seem to have virtually no pro-growth elements. They, in many respects, impede economic expansion by discouraging investment. Obama will need to rely on the natural resiliency of our economy to see any upside. Reagan's dramatic increase in defense spending broke the back of communism, and his tax cuts led to the largest economic boom in the nation's history. Reagan also created in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 million jobs. Obama is hoping to create or "save" 3 to 3.5 million jobs in his first term. Pretty weak. Bush 43 did better even though he had to deal with 911.
The "bigger government" argument for tough times is a false choice. The private sector has more than five times the capacity of the government to invest, plus when it does, it doesn't saddle the public with debt. Government should almost never be the first option. Despite what some may believe, markets should not always be left to their own devices. There are times when it is appropriate and necessary for the government to intervene. Markets can freeze and become inefficient. The government should not replace the market, though, but properly incent it (often through tax and investment policy) to get back on track. The multiplier effect has proven to be orders of magnitude greater for private versus government dollars.
Insofar as impediments are concerned, again, proper incentives would have stirred trillions of private dollars from the sidelines; thereby placing the risk and profit incentive where it belongs. Greed can be a force for good. The government would have done itself and us a service if it would have put policies in place that would have allowed greed to trump fear. Government spending doesn't lead you out of recessions. It can provide a quick tick upward, but it doesn't last (e.g. Feb. 2008 stimulus). A framework for ongoing growth needs to be established. Small business is responsible for over 80% of job creation. Imagine the potential positive impact of polices that properly invigorate that sector, not to mention what could have been done with intelligent adjustments to the corporate income tax. I'd also be careful about all the blame shifting in the Obama camp. Yes, TARP has not been a shining star, but Obama and his gang have proven to be even more inept at managing it. They at least had the benefit of weeks/months to formulate a plan (which never really materialized). Also, Bush/Paulson were overly deferential to the incoming administration, and as such, did not manage the program as diligently as was required.
This is no where near the biggest economic crisis in history. In fact, it is considerably less significant than the downturn in the early 70's and the one in 1980-81. Reagan jump started us out of a deep economic hole with pro-growth policies. Obama's government spending initiatives represent nearly 30% of GDP, roughly 10 times what Reagan needed to ignite a massive expansion.
About bipartisanship, Ford, Bush 41 and Reagan were quite good at working with the other side of the isle. Bush 43 made numerous overtures on domestic issues (e.g. No Child Left Behind; Prescription Drug benefit; etc.), but not many when it came to foreign policy. The Left never accepted him as a legitimate president after the controversy of the 2000 election; therefore, they were not in a particularly cooperative mood.
Reply to this
No doubt the liberal mainstream media will give him an A++ for the first 100 days. A great (and quick) read about how ridiculous the coverage is for this guy, can be found in Bernard Goldberg's latest book "A Slobbering Love Affair", As you point out he's really done nothing but guarantee our grandchildren a pile of debt. Oh how the howled about GW and his Trillion dollar deficit, despite inheriting a recession followed shortly thereafter by 9/11 and two wars. Hosannabama is going to triple it, and markedly increase the gov't control on the banking, automobile and who knows what other industries. I feel really confident in the gov't running things, since they are so efficient, and there is none of the corruption that exists in the private sector. And foreign policy? So far, all he's done is jaunt about the globe and discredit his country. First apologizing to the euroweenies for our arrogance, then providing propaganda clips for all the "tyrants of the people" in Latin America. This guy is an absolute menace. But, he's still a slave to the far left. He just couldn't resist releasing the memos about the "torture" of our enemies (who would gladly behead any of us infidels) but all the memos about the actionable intelligence the "enhanced techniques" provided remain classified. Even though he initially said there were no plans to prosecute those involved, he has caved to the America haters and has left the door open for a witch hunt. All to improve our image with the rest of the world? What does the rest of the world do to improve their image here? Nothing.. they don't have to. They can sit back under our protection and criticize us, or slink around plotting our destruction They don't really care what we think.
Reply to this