Obama the wanderer

I've been struggling over the last few weeks to put my finger on what bothers me so much about Barack Obama. Yes, I know that sounds strange coming from me -- since the pages of my blog are filled with criticisms of the man and his beliefs. But there is something else that is bugging me about the Obama presidency, and it isn't so much about policy as it is a feeling that I have -- a sense of the peripatetic way he is going about this very serious job he has. I've been watching Obama now travel from media event to media event, fluttering about the country with much fanfare but little substance. There is something missing. A sense of steadiness. His devotion to his teleprompter -- already the stuff of scorn and ridicule -- is unsettling. Wasn't he supposed to be the eloquent one who wields a brilliant intellect? The next great communicator?

Peggy Noonan does a masterful job in today's Wall Street Journal of putting my sense of Obama into words -- it's a must read. I've been frustrated with Noonan's commentary about Obama since the election -- she seemed all too willing to accept the notion that Obama really is some new, transcendental leader. But no more. This most recent piece captures perfectly the true essence of the "Obama phenomena" -- full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing:

He is willowy when people yearn for solid, reed-like where they hope for substantial, a bright older brother when they want Papa, cool where they probably prefer warmth. All of which may or may not hurt Barack Obama in time...

Such impressions—coolness, slightness—can come to matter only if they capture or express some larger or more meaningful truth. At the moment they connect, for me, to something insubstantial and weightless in the administration's economic pronouncements and policies. The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say.

Our new president is chasing the news cycle, going on Jay Leno and following the cues from the dwarfs in Congress -- that august body of tax cheats and pork spenders where Obama most recently worked. He is engaged in a dance of reaction as opposed to a steady march of action, all at a time when we are dealing with crisis at home and war abroad. This is a time for steeliness and strength, and what we have is unfocused, peripatetic waffling.

Those of you who read this blog know that this comes as no surprise to me. Barack Obama is a man of great salesmanship, who understands how to get you excited to buy something, but then knows nothing of the details once you've purchased it. He's already on to the next sale, the next opportunity to close the deal and show his ability to convince and cajole. His sense of office is a constant campaign -- lots of platitudes and generalities, the kind of stuff that makes crowds clap. He's a jack of all and master of none. And now that he is the master of our collective domain -- the United States of America -- the weaknesses show through with growing clarity and alarm.

As Noonan succinctly argues, Obama has two jobs -- to fix the economy and to keep us safe. On both scores he seems wanting. When Dick Cheney recently criticized Obama for making us less safe in the wake of his recent decisions on Guantanamo and interrogation, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted with disdain. Mr. Cheney is part of a 'Republican cabal.' 'I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy.' This was cheap."

Cheap and wrong. For whatever you wish to say about Dick Cheney, he know of what he speaks -- having seen first hand the post 9/11 intelligence briefings for 8 years. Cheney knows that the threat from Islamic terrorism is a constant drumbeat that can't be wished or talked away. He knows that the Obama administration has not yet found a serious footing on this issue -- and that this puts the country at risk. Noonan says it well:

What can be used will be used. We are a target. Something bad is going to happen—don't we all know this? Are we having another failure of imagination?

A month ago former FBI director Robert Mueller, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warned of Mumbai-type terrorist activity, saying a similar attack could happen in a U.S. city. He spoke of the threat of homegrown terrorists who are "radicalized," "indoctrinated" and recruited for jihad. Mumbai should "reinvigorate" U.S. intelligence efforts. The threat is not only from al Qaeda but "less well known groups." This had the hard sound of truth.

Contrast it with the new secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, who, in her first speech and testimony to congress, the same week as Mr. Mueller's remarks, did not mention the word terrorism once. This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, she was pressed: "Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?" Her reply: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism." It's true she didn't use the word terrorism in her speech, but she did refer to "man-caused" disasters. "This is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear."

Ah. Well this is only a nuance, but her use of language is a man-caused disaster.

Exactly right. Eight years after 9/11 and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are still learning the same lesson over and over again: there are enemies who want to destroy us out there, they are Islamic fundamentalists and they can and will use any weapon they can get their hands on -- from machine guns to suitcase nuclear bombs. It isn't an issue of nuance, it is one of survival. The administration's responses -- as Dick Cheney points out -- should in no way be comforting.

These are the two great issues, the economic crisis and our safety. In the face of them, what strikes one is the weightlessness of the Obama administration, the jumping from issue to issue and venue to venue from day to day. Isaiah Berlin famously suggested a leader is a fox or a hedgehog. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.

Very well said, Peggy.

Porkulus bill mocked transparency

1175 pages. That’s the length of the most massive-spending, government-expansive, pork-laden piece of legislation in U.S. history. And no one read it.

The “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” as it is so, ahem, inaptly called, was dispatched in its final, conference committee form at 12:00 AM on Friday the 13th.

Neither chamber was presented with a PDF copy of the bill, so the staffers, as video of a meeting in Senator Jim DeMint’s office reveals, had to go through it page-by-page the old fashioned way—by hand. Nearly 1200 pages. Normally they can search through the bill on the computer with greater ease, but the leadership would not allow it.

Furthermore, neither the Senate nor the House leadership permitted much time at all for debate and discussion on the bill in its final form, despite the fact that Republicans were essentially shut out of the conference committee process. Nor was the bill allowed to be read on the House and Senate floors.

And yet the bill was passed by the House after 2:00 PM, and the Senate followed suit later in the evening.

The public has a right to expect that, at the very least, the staffers in Congress have ample opportunity and means to read and review legislation before a vote and that their elected representatives have sufficient time to fully hash out and debate a bill before it becomes law. However, prior to the passing of the act, virtually no one got through it. And it wasn’t because they didn’t want to. With just 14 hours in the House, for instance, and no PDF copy, how could they?

Parts of the bill were even edited by hand. One line was crossed out, the number increased from $250 million to $500 million by hand. Such was the case with many portions of the bill.

Pork was thrown in casually, such as $1.4 billion tucked in for science. What kind of science? Nothing particular. Just science. So much for President Obama’s claim that the bill wasn’t stuffed with pork.

Welfare reform, the greatest success of the Clinton years, was subtly undone, as politicians in the backroom inserted provisions that would encourage states to keep the unemployed on the welfare rolls instead of take them off.

Here we have the single biggest spending bill in U.S. history, as well as the most massive solitary piece of legislation in U.S. history. Pork was unceremoniously injected. Staffers had no time to get through it all. It was forbidden to be read on the House and Senate floors. Debate and discussion were severely limited before the votes took place. Republicans were essentially shut out of the conference committee process.

The president claims to have tried to reach out to Republicans. After all, he did meet with them several times, didn’t he?

Yet when he met with House Republican leaders, he told them not to listen to Rush Limbaugh because, in doing so, “you can’t get things done.” In other words, he was telling them not to listen to Rush not because he’s a jerk, but because Limbaugh represents the antithesis of Obama’s left-wing agenda, one of the most powerful voices of opposition against Obama’s presidency. We can’t have that, now, can we?

And the Republicans will never forget Obama’s argument on taxes. “I won,” he said. True bipartisanship.

In his speech rallying the troops at the House Democratic Caucus retreat on the 6th, Obama labeled contentions against the stimulus bill “old,” “tired,” “worn-out” and “phony.” Clearly that’s the kind of bipartisan rhetoric that will get things done in Washington. That’s a new kind of politics right there, a “fresh” way to reach out across the aisle.

Sarcasm, of course. Does that sound like hope and change to you?

Obama promised on the campaign trail that a waiting period would pass during which all legislation is online for the public to view before it’s passed, yet he didn’t even attempt to hold to that pledge.

Call me crazy, but the jive I’m getting is that the Democratic Congress and Obama administration are acting out the “same old, petty politics” that the President decried in his campaign.

The bill has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. We needn't beat this drum anymore, pound something that is now law, but the way this bill was pushed through Congress less than 24 hours after its release tells us exactly what we need to know about and what we can expect from the next two to four years of Democrat dominance. As far as this observer is concerned, it puts a nail into the "openness" and "transparency" promised by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.

And we’re not even a full month into his presidency yet.

Big spenders unhinged; price tag $3.2T

The era of big government is back -- with a vengeance. President Obama returned to Denver to sign into law his American Reinvestment and Recovery Act -- the biggest spending bill in history, conservatively priced at $787 billion. In reality, this "stimulus" encourages nothing but government dependency and the belief that you really can get something for nothing. It should be known as the American Dependency and Redistribution Act because that's what it stimulates most.

But Americans said they wanted change; now they've got it. Or do they? President Bush's biggest failure was a lack of fiscal discipline -- the inability to say "no" to big spenders, especially those in his own party. But if Bush was undisciplined, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are completely unhinged.

With a single piece of legislation, Democrats will spend more during Obama's first month than Bush spent on the entire Iraq war. They passed the 1,073-page bill before anyone could read it -- just days after unanimously adopting a policy to require that the public have 48 hours to review legislation before it comes to a vote.

Democrats' commitment to transparency in Congress follows the same pattern as Obama's commitment to keeping lobbyists out of his cabinet -- they're for it, except when they're against it.

Bush signed a feckless $150 billion stimulus package last spring and the $700 billion TARP bailout bill plan in September and was criticized for both, from the right and the left. How many Obama voters expected the new president to follow in that same furrow, using not a shovel but an excavator?

Democrats like to claim "economists agree" that a government stimulus plan is necessary. Yet economists also acknowledge that the economy would eventually recover even if Congress did nothing.

Since the choice is between a government-induced recovery and one that would ultimately sort itself out, we should expect that government action do no harm.

Unfortunately, this stimulus is a minefield of potential and inevitable harm--if not abject fiscal disaster.

Congressional Budget Office notes that any short-term stimulative effect will wane, followed by rising government debt that actually hinders economic growth.

Then there's the cost of exploding federal deficits.

The cost of the stimulus isn't merely the $787 billion in authorized spending. It's closer to $3.2 trillion because it expands or resurrects many social welfare programs. Nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars will be required just for interest payments on debt.

Had Bush uttered Obama's simplistic "stimulus is spending" rhetoric, he would have been pilloried by the press as a know-nothing. Obama acts as if all government spending is equally stimulative, so the lion's share of this boondoggle is little more than a resurrection of the welfare state.

Welfare reforms hammered out between President Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1996 are rolled back. New entitlements are promised. These expenditures are authorized only through 2011, but the underlying programs form the foundation for a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The entitlement lobby will fight, hammer and tong, any effort to end funding, accusing opponents of "hating children and seniors," just as they vilified Republicans during welfare reform.

As the Bush administration was largely defined by the war on terrorism, so Obama's will be defined by the biggest spending bill in history, a return to the welfare state, and exploding deficits -- ultimately leading to soaring inflation and rising interest rates.

Six years ago, Bush's decision to invade Iraq enjoyed overwhelming support, but when the war effort stumbled, the public and many politicians turned on a dime and left him holding the bag. Now, public support for the stimulus appears to be a mile wide but an inch deep. Americans hope it will work but don't expect their own finances to improve.

If the economy is still struggling in a year or two with today's problems compounded by inflation and rising interest rates, President Obama will learn that he alone owns his decisions and that the Oval Office can be a very lonely place.

Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

Sausage process belied BHO promises

Many Americans are skeptical of the economic stimulus bill as passed by Congress, and with good reason. We may debate the merits of the Keynesian principles of government stimulated economy versus supply side economics. Both the House and Senate versions of the stimulus package, however, did not embody the true intent of either theory. They are, rather, a dreadful example of social engineering and special interest spending that most Americans denounce. Despite calls to implement the best ideas from all to stimulate the economy and reach a true bipartisan compromise, this bill has been rammed through the legislative process without taking stock of legitimate concerns and proven stimulus techniques or the implications of massive debt on future generations.

Keynesian theory is an economic policy that believes you can stimulate the private sector through tax policies and funding of public projects. As the government spends money on infrastructure it creates jobs and makes America more competitive on the world market through the infrastructure improvements. Even though the stimulus package was presented as primarily Keynesian, both versions stimulus bill of 2009 spend more money on special interest projects and the type of wasteful, uncontrolled spending that is often blamed for our current economic troubles.

Supply side economists believe that the best way to get Americans back to work is to create tax structures that encourage businesses and people to invest capital and create jobs. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate of industrialized nations. I favor a reduction of corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, which would directly inject capital into an economy that is sputtering. I also believe there are legitimate infrastructure, scientific and transportation projects that are practical only on a governmental scale that would also make us more efficient and effective.

President Barack Obama made three main promises about taxes, the economy and spending during his campaign. First, he promised that 95 percent of Americans would receive a tax cut. Second, businesses that created or transferred jobs from overseas would receive a $3,000 tax credit, per job. Third, he pledged to go line-by-line through the budget and remove wasteful spending and eliminate special interest pork. It is disappointing that two of three promises have not represented in the economic stimulus package. Although there are some tax cuts, they are nowhere near the extent to which he promised and unlikely to stimulate investment in businesses or create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) assessment of the current stimulus bills states that the spending will probably result in an economic drag on the economy due to increased debt and insufficient stimulating activities. Further, the CBO analysis concludes there is not enough spending in 2009 to give the economy a jump start and, overall, most expenditures are not stimulating in nature.

I realize that through the art of legislation and politics, many campaign promises are often too difficult or impractical to implement. I believe that the President should have shown true leadership by putting a stop to the wasteful spending and taking the time for serious thought and negotiation. President Obama should have led this process, rather than leave the crafting of this critical legislation to the sausage mill process and divisive House and Senate leaders.

True bipartisanship in Washington would combine the best of both of Keynesian and supply side economic principles while being as fiscally responsible as possible. This is the type of change that Americans want and need. Americans' real hope was for our politicians to resist the temptation to load special interest spending in the stimulus and avoid taking out a second mortgage on our children's future.

Scott Starin works in industry, ran for Congress in 2008, and chairs the Boulder County Republicans. This is from his Sunday column in the Boulder Camera.

Spine in the Senate

As Heard on Backbone Radio, Feb. 15Sorry, no podcast of this show

Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

What a sad showing of vanity and weakness by Senators Spector, Snowe, and Collins in helping pass the generational theft bill, misnamed stimulus, for President Obama. In contrast, what a display of backbone by Sen. Judd Gregg in walking away from a cabinet post after he realized the price of bipartisanship was going to mean betrayal of his principles. It goes to remind us there are Republicans and Republicans. The GOP label can mislead. What's inside the package should be, but isn't always, individual freedom and responsibility, limited government, market economics, and personal integrity. Caveat citizen!

Our purpose at Backbone Radio is to help you exercise the "caveat" with solid facts, analysis, and constitutional fidelity. I invite you to listen in, and call in, this Sunday as my guests include...

** Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-MN... State Board of Education Chairman Bob Schaffer... and our regular contributor Dr. Bill Moloney.

** Plus Metro State student Sean Doherty, editor of the newly launched conservative paper on campus, the "Constitutional Reporter," which had administrators panicked just by announcing its name.

** Plus my special one-hour exploration of Colorado conservatism in the wilderness with Penn Pfiffner, Independence Institute fellow and former state representative.

Yours for self-government, JOHN ANDREWS