In Obama's remark to ABCNews, there was a hint of self-righteous vanity, as if to suggest that he isalready somehow exceeding his two predecessors, each of whom served two terms.Actually, he has yet to display the political moxie of either Bill Clinton orGeorge W. Bush, both presidents who managed to push through much of theiragendafor better and worseregardless of the circumstances they faced. Bycontrast, Obama has too often allowed his priorities to languish and hissupporters to despair in a void of "bipartisanship."
The most troublingexample yet is his sudden turn toward a spending freeze, which appears to benothing more than pandering to the angry right. There are many reasons why thiswill not work as policy or politics, beginning with the nature of the proposaland concluding with its certain impact.
By exempting themilitary, homeland security, veterans and international affairs, the plan willaffect less than one-fifth of the entire federal budget, total less than 3%annually and save about $25 billion per year over the coming decade. Thepresident's conservative critics in Congress and the media will eagerly andeasily lampoon this level of cutting as insignificant and insufficient (althoughthe Republicans will offer no realistic alternative).
As a sop to citizensconcerned about the deficit, the Obama freeze is unlikely to make anyimpression. It smacks of a cynical gesture designed to respond to the latestpolls.
SpendingIs Necessary During a Recession
Worse than the politicsis the premature decision to reduce the deficit, which directly contradicts thelogic of the stimulus program adopted by the president upon assuming his officeand undermines the impact of that program. Small as the freeze is, the cuts inspending will nevertheless reduce economic demand at a time when unemployment,low wages and declining benefits continue to devastate the middle class andworking poor.
Reducing deficits issound policy, of course, in times of steady growth. But as Obama's own economicteam understands, the "common sense" that urges us to balance thebudget every year like any household actually makes no sense at all forgovernment. Historically, Americahas won wars, built the nation and spread prosperity through deficitspendingand then returned to balanced budgets when deficits were no longerrequired to stimulate growth. Both the debt and the deficit following World WarII were much higher than today in real terms, and were drastically reduced bygrowth rather than austerity.
At least, that is whatDemocrats believeor are supposed to believe. Even the budget-balancingDemocrats of the Clintonera have endorsed higher deficits during the Great Recession because there issimply no other source of economic stimulation when banks refuse to lend,consumers won't consume and businesses cut employment.
What is Obama's excusefor crushing the hopes of his supporters and forfeiting the argument to hisenemies? He cannot cite rising interest rates or consumer price indexes toprove that the deficit should suddenly become his top priority. Inflation andinterest rates remain reasonably stable so farand so does stubbornunemployment, despite signs that the recession has ended. The only thing thathas changed since last year's “State of the Union”address is the political situation confronting the president, to which he nowresponds with meek resignation.
There is no such thingas "a really good one-term president." A really good president sticksto principle, fights for progressive policy, improves people's lives and winsre-election. After one year, that is what Americans still expect of Obama. Hehas no right to disappoint them.
%uFFFD 2010 Creators.com.
