In a long litany of presidential sins, in my opinion, this was Mr. Bush's worst, for power granted to the executive is almost impossible to get back. And this is serious power; not the essentially bureaucratic requirement that an industry provide services like health care, or temporary loans to failing industries crucial to the economy; but the power to imprison, to torture, to invade homes - even to kill Americans without judicial review.
So, during the 2008 presidential campaign, I was glad that then-Senator Barack Obama confronted those issues directly and issued clear, definitive statements about the way he would address restoring the checks and balances so critical to the success - to the very existence - of the United States. As President Obama, unfortunately, he has diluted his promises, dodged his commitments, failed to act, and in the worst cases, actually gone beyond his predecessor's excesses.
This would be bad enough in the short term, but in the longer view, it is worse. Not only is a precedent of lawlessness and rule by fiat being reinforced during Mr Obama's administration, prospects for reversal dim with each passing day. For if a man elected in a tidal wave of electoral desire for change won't walk back the abuses of one president, it is even less likely that a future chief executive will do so for the abuses of two.
For some time now, I have been pondering a post on President Obama and executive power. Last week, however, Jon Stewart devoted much of The Daily Show to a segment entitled "Respect My Authoritah" that focused on exactly that topic, and I'm not sure there is much more I can add at the moment. Mr. Obama remains the superior choice in the 2008 election, but unless he changes direction, he will have entrenched some of the worst changes to American govenment in moden history. Rather than be remembered as a transformational leader, he will instead be damned with the faint praise that at least he was better than McCain/Palin.
4 comments:
PBI - but don't you see? When it is HIS efforts, it is the correct approach. Laugh my friggin arse off that your savior is just another politician. Now quit wasting our money and actually invest in job CREATION, not some dumbass new metric of jobs SAVED. (Doubt that metric even crossed Keynes' mind - HA!)
- Grip
Grip,
The only people who refer to Obama as any kind of "savior" are people who didn't vote for him. That fact is emblematic of being in the reality-based community, and it is why I am criticizing the president for whom I voted, something no Republican - let along any future Teabagger - ever did while Bush was in office.
You seem to be implying that "there was essentially no difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2008 election, so vote Republican". As much I want Obama to do more, and as much as I believe he is capable of that, the reality is that there is no way I would ever vote for the utterly preposterous ticket the GOP put forth. I'll take a mediocre centrist over staggering stupidity and obvious political whoredom any day of the week.
Agreed on the need for job creation; trying to cut spending to create jobs doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Taxes are at their lowest point in the last 50 years; if the private sector isn't creating jobs, it will have to come from the government, deficit or no.
PBI
Mediocre CENTRIST???
Dude - you have LOST it. His policies and desires are clearly LEFT, even to the extreme in some cases. But he won the election and earned the right to make his ideas work. Why is it so hard to say His ideology is mostly left of mainstream? You assume because He has taken the stance on these legalese items with which you disagree must make Him a centrist? He may be centrist compared to you, but He is NOT a centrist.
Unfortunately, you sound as if you have bought the line that Tea Party folks are all extreme or complete puppets. How sad and intellectually dishonest. Announced today, CBO predicts the National Debt will be 62% of GDP by the end of THIS year, a 50% increase since the end of 2008. Yet, Krugman (and I assume you as well) continue to call for even MORE debt spending. Paying other people's bills does not create jobs. It does NOT have a positive multiplier effect. We CAN'T keep this up. IF the stimulus had been spent of creating sustainable jobs, we would likely have avoided some of this. But the Administration let Pelosi and Reid pick the winners & losers of stimulus funding. Then He focused on healthcare, CLAIMING this was a 'jobs' issue... spent a whole year on it. That worked out real well, huh? Net, it is unfortunate if you can't understand why average people are upset and frustrated about all of this.
And we have discussed this MANY times, but there actually WERE quite a few from the right bitching and complaining about Bush spending - I believe I even used the "like a drunken sailor" line several times. In fact, you may like this (or not), but I used to respond to RNC fundraising mailers by filling in the "other" section with, "When you stop spending money, I'll start sending money."
Paying off the bills of poorly run state gov'ts and greeding Unions, does not CREATE jobs. Violating the "Rule of Law" and sending contractually SECURED investors to the side in favor of the UAW has chilled the investment community - the DRIVER of real, sustainable job creation. Ramming through a version of health care legislation that few wanted and will NOT do the things He professes creates more uncertainty - further leading to $1.5 Trillion of investment dollars on the sidelines WAITING.... Gov't COULD have created jobs with the stimulus, but they chose to pay off favored groups. We could have had folks building/repairing stuff now, but Gov't would rather extend unemployment benefits vs. giving them a job. A push for a Green economy is leading to even more lay-offs (i.e. rig workers in the Gulf because of the 6 month drilling permit moritorium). Pushing for a National Energy Tax that will lead to a competitive disadvantage with other countries will take even more money out of our pockets - making them unavailable to invest in companies who COULD create jobs.
Sorry - I'm ranting and need to stop.
“Dude - you have LOST it. His policies and desires are clearly LEFT, even to the extreme in some cases. “
- Please list for me the extreme leftist policies followed by the president. Is it the universal health care supported by the vast majority of Americans for years (see here, from 2003, or here from 2009) and to be administered by private enterprise? The continuation of two wars? The maintenance of Bush-era surveillance policies? The largest middle class tax cut in recent history? Are you serioulsy trying to label those policies “leftist” or “out of the mainstream”?
“Paying other people's bills does not create jobs. It does NOT have a positive multiplier effect. We CAN'T keep this up. IF the stimulus had been spent of creating sustainable jobs, we would likely have avoided some of this.”
- This is, flatly, not true. Unemployment benefits have a higher stimulative multiplier than tax cuts. (See here.) That is basic, demand-driven economics, and belt-tightening in an trough like we’re in right now is wholly discredited supply-side voodoo.
‘And we have discussed this MANY times, but there actually WERE quite a few from the right bitching and complaining about Bush spending.”
- I remember you saying something along those lines in the last year or two, but I don’t remember having that conversation with a single Bush-voter during the first seven years of his administration. There was most certainly no public movement advocating cuts in spending equivalent to what we’re seeing in the Tea Party movement or the newly-minted deficit hawkishness of the post-Obama GOP. After all, according to Dick Cheney, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.”
- And you’re right, Bush DID spend like a drunken sailor, this is a Bush deficit (see here) and Obama has an enormous mess that will not be turned around by belt tightening; you can’t save your way to increase demand, which is what fires the economy, and increased demand will eventually generate taxes which are used to pay down the deficit. (Here is an excellent article on exactly this topic: http://allisonkilkenny.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/the-end-is-nigh-unless-its-not/). This is well-supported by events following the Great Depression.
“We could have had folks building/repairing stuff now, but Gov't would rather extend unemployment benefits vs. giving them a job.”
- I agree partially, but this supposes that federal projects – of which there are actualy a considerable number, by the way – are geographically available to everyone AND that all unemployed people are able to perform the work.
No need to apologize for the rant – these are stressful times – but I DO think you are staking your case on some things that are demonstrably untrue.
Gotta run – I’m headed to a Cards game at Busch.
Post a Comment