Broken Promises

A few weeks ago President Obama’s job approval rating was at 41%, and has now dropped to 40. From August 11 through the 13^th he hit an all time low of 39% before rebounding a paltry 1%. What’s going on here? Rasmussen had 41% “strongly disapproving” and now a 45% disapproval from likely voters. From what I hear President Obama’s approval ratings are so low that the Kenyans are now accusing him of being born in the United States. I heard that somewhere, not sure where.

So the question is, where do we go from here? Well, no one knows really. One thing we do know, however, is that we’ve had three years of the worst economic growth, highest jobless numbers, divisiveness and rancor this country has ever seen. Let me rattle off a few simple items Obama promised during his presidential campaign ¾ promises he hasn’t fulfilled. No profound discourse, no more quoting statistics, just a few off the top of my head. A few I distinctly remember being made by our esteemed leader, and some I’m sure you’ll remember as well.

He was going to bring our country together ¾ wasn’t he? Less divisiveness, less partisanship, more working together in unity. I haven’t seen it Lucy. What about transparency? On the White House website Obama’s administration claimed it would be “the most open and transparent in history.” Here are Obama‘s words.

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.

“Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing….”

Unfortunately this didn’t come to bear. Remember the Democratic members of Congress and the administration precipitously hastening the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? They pushed it to a vote after allowing lawmakers only a few hours to read the 1,027 page bill. And now we need to hurry and pass the President’s jobs bill. We need to pass it immediately, without fully understanding it or debating the merits of its contents.

And then there’s the little issue of the “sunlight before signing” promise Obama made during his campaign in Manchester, NH on June 22, 2007.

He said, “when there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Do you remember that one? Hmm, I must have missed the postings.

He also said, “too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

Not only did he rush through the above mentioned bailout bill, but his first signed bill was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act - signed only two days after its passage. He signed his second bill, one expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a mere three hours after Congress passed it. Does this sound like a man with transparency? How about a man that keeps his promises?

Does anyone remember PAYGO? This is suppose to be pay as you go, enacted in Congress as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. It was a Democratic majority Congress and Democratic president that passed PAYGO. Although you’ll never hear the liberal media mention it these days. In 1990 it was billed as the “wonder program” that would put us “on the path to restoring fiscal discipline.” It would also “end the irresponsible practices of deficit spending.” Barack Obama praised the bill, and the Democrats who passed it, on national airwaves. Here’s some of what he had to say.

“…what also made these large deficits possible was the end of a common sense rule called “pay as you go.” (Pay as you go is a sound financial practice used by households and businesses alike, well before the government took it up in a bill.) “It’s pretty simple. It says to Congress, you have to pay as you go.” (Duh!) “You can’t spend a dollar unless you cut a dollar elsewhere. This is how a responsible family or business manages a budget. And this is how a responsible government manages a budget as well.

“It was this rule that helped lead to a balanced budget in the 1990s. By making clear that we could not increase entitlement spending or cut taxes simply by borrowing more money. And it was the abandonment of this rule that allowed the previous administration and previous congresses to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy and create an expensive new drug program without paying for any of it. Now, in a perfect world Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly, to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today - our children tomorrow.

“But this isn’t a perfect world. This is Washington. And while in theory there is bipartisan agreement on moving on balanced budgets, in practice, this responsibility for the future is often overwhelmed by the politics of the moment. It falls prey to the pressure of special interests, to the pull of local concerns, and to a reality familiar to every single American - the fact that it is a lot easier to spend a dollar than save one.

“That is why this rule is necessary. And that is why I am pleased that Congress fulfilled my request to restore it. Last night I signed the “pay as you go” rule into law. Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else.”

Isn’t that some of the most beautiful rhetoric you’ve ever heard? Unfortunately it doesn’t look like Mr. Obama is doing what he preached, or practicing the law. If we cut a dollar for every dollar of new spending, why have we borrowed so much? Why are we working on Q3 now? Is quantitative easing the answer? Barack thinks so.

By the way, didn’t our President also tell us unemployment wouldn’t be over 8%? I think this is what he said back in February of ‘08 at a Democratic debate.

“Our economy is increasingly in shambles. And the families of Texas and all across America are feeling the brunt of that failing economy.”

Well Mr. President, Texas is actually doing better than 70% of the country thanks to Governor Perry. As a matter of fact, that “failing economy” you referred to, had a national unemployment rate of 4.8% back then. If that was “in shambles” what are we in now?

Barack also promised “earmark reform” and “no jobs for lobbyists.” I think it was in November of ‘07, in Des Moines, Iowa, when Obama boasted there would be no jobs for lobbyists in his administration or during his presidency.

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists ¾ and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

He also went on to say, “…when I am president they won’t find a job in my White House.”

And in rebuttal to no special interests what about this? The USA Today reported that thirty-eight members of his campaign fundraising team, from various law firms, had been paid $138 million in 2007 to lobby the federal government in their firm’s behalf. The report stated: “Those lawyers, including ten former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million….” It also stated, “…employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million.”

And it didn’t take long before the new found president broke his “no jobs for lobbyists” promise as well, giving William Lynn and William Corr their nominations. William Lynn, the undersecretary at the Department of Defense, was a recent lobbyist for Raytheon, and William Corr, deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, was an anti-tobacco lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

So, if special interest groups are part of the problem, and Congress and government “fall prey” to their pressures, why is Obama still so friendly towards them? What does this mean? Are our president’s words empty, ambiguous, disingenuous? Or is he simply a liar?

Then there’s Guantanamo. Wasn’t that slated for closure by now? That’s right, in January of 2009 President Obama signed an executive order requiring the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to be closed within a year. In another eloquent speech, something he’s quite good at, he promised Americans a return to “moral high ground.” He also said at the signing ceremony that the United States does not have “to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals.” At the White House he said he was ordering the closure to “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism.”

So what happened? It’s still open for business. For all we know they may still be water-boarding.

And what about bringing our troops home? On Obama’s campaign website he promised to “remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within sixteen months.” He didn’t do it. And on February 27^th he announced he would end all combat missions in Iraq by August 31, 2010 and  be out of there. Then he said he would “leave behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops and remove all soldiers from Iraq by December 31, 2011.” Well, which is it Mr. President? Hell, the last targeted withdraw by Obama was the same deadline Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government in the Status of Forces Agreement ¾ it was nothing new.

Sure, some of Obama’s supporters are going to say the situation changed. And sure, there has been a lot of excuses. But bottom line, he still didn’t do what he said he would.

I’ve heard his defenders say, “we can’t create a vacuum.” Or, “it must be a slow, conscientious and methodical downsizing in order to maintain a secure and coherent government in those countries. Governments that are friendly to our needs.” We’ve all heard the rhetoric about it being a national security issue, but hell, I thought that’s what we were paying them for ¾ their friendship.

Obama told us and Congress we needed to get those responsible for the 911 attack, those that were culpable. That we needed to focus on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. And he did, he sent more than 100,000 soldiers over there. Well Mr. President, we got ol’ Bin, why are we still there?

The list of failed promises could go on interminably. The new American jobs tax credit. According to his “comprehensive tax plan” published during his campaign he was going to “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.” I’m still paying them, are you?

“If a company that currently has ten US employees increases its domestic full-time employment to twenty employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit. Enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees. The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit.”

That was more of his rhetoric at a different time. What happened to that one? Or the promise of a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional full-time employee they hired in ‘09 or 2010? The promise that seniors drawing $50,000 or less in retirement wouldn’t pay any federal income tax?

If only Obama had made good on a few of these promises we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re currently in. But hey, it’s not really his fault. Right? After all, it was George that stopped him from keeping his word.