Yesterday the Houston Chronicle posted an article by Leonard Pitts, which basically called all conservatives racists. The Pulitzer Prize writer evidently has some research inhibiting disease that prevented him to see that some people look at other issues than race to determine who they vote for. So in response I would offer these reasons why I do not support the liberal minded Obama, and why if you voted for the man you should not support him now. We will start with economics.
During the campaign Barack Obama blamed bush for deficit spending saying that “we have had over the last 8 years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for 4 out of 5 of those George Bush budgets.” He also said that as President he would ensure that the government acts fiscally responsible and that every new spending program would be accounted for with government cuts in other areas. So lets see how he has done. With this years deficit spending of $1.84 trillion he has more than tripled the record set by the Bush administration in his last year as President. That is not fiscally responsible nor has he accounted for this spending with budget cuts. Even the healthcare bill currently on the table does not account for the cost with cuts or even tax increases, although tax increases are very likely and could include a VAT tax, taxation of private healthcare plans, and taxes on unhealthy foods. His pay-as-you-go initiative sounds responsible, but it excludes major items such as healthcare so it is really just more political gaming. ‘Say one thing to the public and then do the opposite and hope no one notices.’ Another economic reform item on his to do list is the issue of earmarks in legislation. “Absolutely we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” He was tested on this statement when he received his first budget for the end of his first fiscal year. There were over 8,000 earmarks in this legislation and he did not fulfill his promise when he signed it. Maybe we should judge him as he judged Bush. “When millions of Americans aren’t working, neither are the Bush Administration’s economic policies.” Of course he will undoubtedly try to take credit for any jobs that are created as the economy improves. The credit should go to the capitalist free market system, but he doesn’t believe in that.
The second big issue of change for this administration is reform and transparency of government. He really failed in this aspect from the very beginning, even before the election. If you remember he signed a piece of paper agreeing to take public financing if John McCain did. McCain did and he did not. This after bashing the amount of money spent on campaigns, but before he realized how much money he would have. The second pre-election anti-reform action of Obama was his statement that he does not take money from lobbyists. Turns out he does take money from bundlers who lobby and lobbyists’ wives though. The third red flag most people should have seen pre-election was the ACORN organization. Not only did he not denounce this organization for their election fraud, he actually gave them some of his campaign money to get out the vote for his Presidential run. Once in office it has not gotten much better. His promise to publish legislation for 5 days before signing was squashed almost immediately. Most notably with the Stimulus Bill, but with many others as well. I guess there was no real reason for the public to read it though since it was not important for anyone in Congress to read it. Low blow, I know. Another example of transparency in government would be the recently rejected Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s clean coal policies. Before becoming President Obama called out the Bush administration for doing the exact same thing. He even went as far as to very publicly issuing a transparency memo on January 21st, but privately his lawyers conveniently left a giant loophole that I guess he thought no one would notice. Oh well. Obama also boasts of his availability to reporters. That was a good point until yesterday when it was revealed that questions are being staged. The main media outlets were not really asking the tough questions anyways. Politico was actually denied yesterday when they tried to ask a question on Iraq and Afghanistan.
All of these elements add up to the change that Obama promised to bring to Washington (despite the fact he never brought them to Chicago…but I digress). I think most would agree that it is easiest to start with the small things when you are addressing such a large problem as our nation’s capital. So that is where I will start as well. Lobbyists are a problem in Washington so Obama promised to address it. No lobbyists will work for me he said. But they are and some like our friend Tom did not make it in, even with Obama’s undying support. But I guess the lobbyists issue can be tough. Ambassadorships are not though. It is a part of the Washington culture to give ambassador posts to big time political donors. Obama has followed tradition. To date 19 ambassadors have given about $100,000 directly to Obama’s campaign, bundled more than $3.4 million for his presidential run and bundled another $1.4 million for his inauguration. These are not critical posts, but it would be a small action of faith to show he means what he says. Another very simple action of change, especially during an economic recession, would be to stop elaborate trips for duties outside of his office of President. The Democratic Caucus meeting at a Luxury Resort, dates with his wife in Chicago and New York City, DNC fundraisers in LA and Vegas…just to name a few.
I think it really boils down to leadership. I do not believe it is good leadership to publicly chastise Republicans for believing in Reaganomics. I do not believe it is good leadership to use your administration to go after a talk radio show host in hopes of creating a political divide. And it is not good leadership to use scare tactics to pass legislation…ie… if we do not pass this stimulus now we may never recover….remember that one. We have not received the Change he promised, but instead Chicago style politics. Those who challenge his policies will be confronted to include news networks. “First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” I wonder who Obama was talking about. Could you imagine the public outrage if Bush made such comments. If anything Bush was a great leader who took criticism without lashing out at those with lesser character. I cannot say the same about our current leadership. We instead have those with great speeches but no actions to back them up.
