Herbert Hoover Returns to the White House
Jan 26th, 2010 | 9 responses
A snip from Barack Obama’s interview with Diane Sawyer:
The president has previously admitted the convoluted process of cobbling together the huge bill had alarmed voters, but said today he will not back off of tackling large issues despite the political jeopardy involved.
“You know, there is a tendency in Washington to believe our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That’s not our job description,” Obama said. “Our job description is to solve problems and to help people.”
Then why is he backing off from health care reform? Why is he planning to announce a Republican-style spending freeze in a deep recession? Does he truly imagine Republicans in Congress will support his initiatives now? Why isn’t he solving problems and helping people instead of running scared from his own oft-stated beliefs?
Too depressed to write any more of my own on this. Here’s the blog roundup.
“Suddenly, deficits matter again,” from Echidne of the Snakes:
They have not mattered for eight years, my sweet reader. But now they do. They matter more than getting jobs for the unemployed, more than fixing health insurance, more than almost anything. And even more ominously, Obama’s planned proposal to freeze some types of federal spending is seen as a way to start boiling the frog that is us[.]
“Obama’s self-inflicted lobotomy proceeds apace,” from Jonathan Zasloff at The Reality-Based Community:
I’m trying to think of what could possibly be a worse plan. Let’s see: we might be entering a double-dip recession and unemployment is in double-digits, and you are going to freeze spending? What in God’s name are they thinking?
Perhaps the worst thing about this is how it cedes the ideological ground to the Republicans. At some point someone must make an argument for government. I think it was former Senator Paul Simon who said: “give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will choose a Republican every time.”
David Dayen notes the neat little trick about defining military spending as “non-discretionary” when it’s the biggest budget-buster of all:
And of course, the truly unbelievable thing about this is how it’s framed as non-security discretionary spending, as if spending on the military is magic and somehow doesn’t affect budgets. If anything is bankrupting the country, it’s the bloated military budget, which is currently at a higher level than during the Cold War buildup of the Reagan Administration. So this freeze will do exceedingly little for the budget deficit, but is sure to hurt a lot of poor and middle-class people.
Dayen also points out Matthew Yglesias’s laugh line:
I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.
Like I wasn’t already depressed.
9 Responses to “Herbert Hoover Returns to the White House”
Looking forward to the Palin Presidency with Republican House and Senate…
Obama has suffered a difficult year. The answer is bold leadership. Crawling away in defeat will save neither his presidency nor his legacy. The man needs a little more Harry Truman.
History teaches there are two things you never do in a serious recession: raise taxes or cut spending. Even Hoover built a dam.
Yup.
“Looking forward to the Palin Presidency with Republican House and Senate…”
I have to say, Don Q., you have the far lefty view exactly right. That's what the kids on Stephanie Miller's pre-teen show were saying, in throwing their tantrums this morning over anything resembling a spending freeze or even hinting at responsible conduct by Washington. “They deserve Palin and the tea baggers taking over the Republican Party…”
This is a clumsy gimmick to appear “responsible.” (Elites out of touch with the real world expect the public's concern over the past year to be dispelled now. Nod your heads, be quiet, and sit down now.)
It also is likely a setup for more taxes later. “Responsible” government making “tough choices,” that is.
“Obama is Hoover — Obama the Republican” — I can't wait to hear Hartmann today, or Ed Schultz, or to hear Rachel Maddow chirp irrationally about this, now.
Look at it this way: He and the Dems really blundered and misbehaved with the stimulus, so why not try (or pretend to try) something else, now?
Someone on the blogosphere compared this to McCain suspending his campaign to help deal with the crash and I think that about sums it up. We can point to these past few weeks as the time when everyone knew Obama was a one term president. After his presidency is done, he'll write more books and give more inspiring speeches and further enrich himself by telling gulls to “overcome adversary” and “follow his example.” Somehow I don't think he'll mention his time of being a pandering, ineffectual excuse of a leader in Washington whose main legislative accomplishment was billions to Goldman Sachs.
You need to understand that Herbert Hoover actually ran some of the greatest peacetime deficits in America's history up to that point. Government spending under his term increased 40%. FDR, supposed liberal god, actually blasted Hoover during the 1932 campaign for his large deficits and promised to cut government spending by 25%. Anyone who actually believes Herbert Hoover was an advocate of laissez faire needs to put down their High school history textbooks and read some real history.
Bring on Palin, she has to better then Obama. And oh by the way I can not wait until the elections.