Obama Report Card

Worrisome patterns emerge.

Obama turned out to be masterful at launching new policies but inconsistent at getting them to work. His presidency threatened to fall into a worrisome pattern: the announcement of a lofty goal, the delegation of implementation to second-rank officials, a missed deadline or two, last-minute intervention by the president to rescue the effort from collapse, and, finally, mixed results -- followed by a statement claiming victory.

The article concludes, however, Obama suffered no outright disasters so by historical standards, he's doing okay.

This is the most worrying to me:

Take the $787-billion economic stimulus plan that Obama muscled through Congress as his first item of business in February. It was big, bold and ambitious -- but in political terms, it's been a failure. Most economists say the stimulus has saved at least half a million jobs, but Obama hasn't convinced most voters that the impact is real.

Spending $787 billion in order to save 500,000 jobs.... I'm not a math major, but isn't that about $1.5 million dollars spent per job saved? I know the stimulus wasn't entirely designed to save jobs, it was also meant to save the net worth of several thousand incredibly wealthy financial industry executives...I mean...stop the financial free fall. But seriously, I don't see how the numbers here add up. Wouldn't those 500,000 people just be better off getting a 1 million dollar check from the government? We'd be saving money overall.

I should find the article, but I read something about a large number of mortgage owners who were given temporary relief from the government still end up in default months down the line. This is the same problem with rescuing GM and the surge in Afghanistan. All these solutions are designed to kick the can down the road and stave off the inevitable. It's paying for things on credit card. There is no sustainability to the plan. Come to think of it, healthcare is the same issue. They want to extend coverage to uninsured and pay for it with 10 years of revenue for 6 years of coverage. Of course the numbers work, it'd be like me spending double my salary this year under the theory that I'll be making enough money over two years to pay for it. No one in their right mind would do this, but for some reason, this is what we're told by our government is the solution to our problems.

If a mortgage owner gets temporary relief from the government, what reason do we have to believe in 6 months or a year down the line when the relief runs out they are going to be able to afford the mortgage. What reason to we have to believe by loaning GM money that they will turn into a profitable car company in a year or five? Aren't we creating incentives for these people and companies to continue operating in an unsustainable fashion? Aren't we implying that in another year or 6 months they are going to get bailed out again? And then what happens when we run out of money? Or when we start taxing the producers (people who are running profitable businesses) too much and they decide it is no longer worth producing? What then? Who do we go to pay for all these things? What do we do in Afghanistan in 2011? Leave? Stay? Pour in more troops? Even in the best case scenario where the Taliban are "pushed back on their heels," if we leave, what happens? How are we in a better or worse position? How is our overall security different? Neither of these two recent terror attacks - at Ft. Hood or on Christmas were a result of Taliban or Al Queda operating in the Af-Pak theater.

Isolated, any one of the issues is justifiable. You can justify mortgage relief as temporary until the real estate market stabilizes and the economy stabilizes and keeps people in their homes and not create a wave of folks losing their homes leading all sorts of other social problems - homelessness, kids falling out of school, crime, etc. (although there is no evidence to suggest these things would necessarily follow). You can justify the stimulus and bank bailout on similar grounds, that is a short term fix to get the economy "back on track." Or the GM bailout, that it is a short term loan to get the company profitable again and avoid other secondary social problems - bankruptcies, unemployment, etc. Likewise in Afghanistan, you can say the Afghan center has a better chance to hold if we push the Taliban back. But all grouped together, another picture emerges. What evidence is there to suggest we are making any choices here? Is there any evidence we are prioritizing resources? Is there any evidence the Obama administration intends to ever pay for any of these things? Or are we simply buying people off? Isn't that another way to look at the pattern? They bought off Wall Street by propping up the banks? We're buying off homeowners who can't pay their mortgage (at the expense of people who a) can or b) want to someday)? I don't know exactly who they are buying off with Afghanistan, it appears there, Obama got stuck into his own campaign thesis that Afghanistan is the good war and Iraq is the bad war? And with healthcare, well, we're buying off everybody - the insurance companies are getting paid and the uninsured are getting paid. Everyone is getting something and we're told no one is paying for it. Why am I suspicious?