Here's a question. And even though I'm pretty sure answers will reflect feelings and alliances against or with the direction the incumbent president wants to take the country, I'll gamely ask it anyway.
Should President Obama have proposed a budget plan that could actually mitigate Washington's gridlock and drama or, as he did yesterday, issue a campaign document thinly disguised as a budget so he can contrinue to run for reelection against Washington?
Here's a clue. Gallup daily tracking polls show Obama's job approval rating at 46 percent. It shows Congress' approval rating at 10 percent. Since governing is all about politics and since politics is all about poll results, there's a strong practical case to be made that the president is playing smart-ball.
But is it responsible? Does it in any way reflect his 2008 campaign pledge to "change" the ways of Washington? Does it even begin to approach a promise he made in 2009 to cut the deficit in half in his first term?
The answers are obvious: no to the first (unless he meant "change" Washington by making it worse); and no to the second because the deficit in `09 was $1.4 trillion and today is $1.3 trillion.
Obama defenders argue the president's plan is responsible because it taxes the rich -- those making more than $250,000 -- which a majority of Americans support, and because it invests $350 billion in infrastructure to, he says, build for the future and keep the nation's economy sputtering toward recovery.
The problem, of course, is Republicans who control the House won't pass any of this because Republicans want no new taxes and much less spending and have the votes to back their wants. They already (cleverly) labeled the president's plan "Debt on Arrival."
So the stage is set, actually re-set, for more partisan stagnation and threats of government shutdowns throughout the coming campaign (the federal budget is due in October).
And the president is positioned to say he's proposing popular plans to move the country forward while the Congress, even as the economy improves, offers nothing but obstruction.
Meanwhile, the fractured GOP presidential campaign continues, providing the president with a widening lead in potential contests against any of the remaining Republican candidates.
So. Actually govern? Or keep campaigning? It's politics in America. You tell me.
Here's a clue. Gallup daily tracking polls show Obama's job approval rating at 46 percent. It shows Congress' approval rating at 10 percent. Since governing is all about politics and since politics is all about poll results, there's a strong practical case to be made that the president is playing smart-ball.--Why, they are mutually exclusive. If Obama gets 46% of the vote, he'll lose. No one votes for Congress in the collective.— tr88- Agree with tr88.
Poll numbers for Congress as a whole are usually quite low. However, people often say their own guy is OK.
Gridlock is good. The 2010 elections were a restraining order on the out-of-control policies of Mr. Obama and his accomplices, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
One further thought. Is it at all possible that we're finally seeing some economic recovery because Washington is in gridlock and prohibited from mucking around with more rules and regulations?— yahzooman - Obama, Newt, Santorum, Romney= one in the same. If you don't realize that your opinion is pretty much worthless.— OhOkay
- "If Obama gets 46% of the vote, he'll lose." ~tr88
That's not necessarily true. It's quite possible to lose the popular vote and still win the electoral college.
And that doesn't even take into consideration a third party on the ticket stealing votes from both sides, such that a majority isn't needed in any case.— Zherog - He is not trying to put people to work..He doesnt care about employment..If he can get the majority of folks on entitlements it helps his cause....and he knows it. If he is re-elected all you have to do is look at what is happening in Greece to get an idea of what is coming here.— chilly88
- "Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you." This is the appeal that Obama's policies have for many Americans. With the majority receiving, who is going to produce what is needed in order to support that majority? I pity the younger generation which is going to inherit this.— SammyD
- Hmph.. I feel fine.— phillyPeteZ
- This loser president has been campaigning since his National Convention speech 8 years ago. He couldn't govern to a bunch of muppets if he was elected as a community organizer on Sesame Street.— blombard
- Rasmussen reports he has a 48% approval rating with muppets, everybody else thinks he is a disaster. Jimmy Carter wakes up every morning and thanks God for this guy, his 40 years as "America's Worst President" are about to end — tooly
- Hey blombard,
Great line!— yahzooman - Ditto yahzooman. That was a great line blombard. When it comes to the budget and acting responsibly here's all you need to know. The last budget that Obamaa+ submitted to the Senate was defeated 97-0. And Senate DEMOCRATS have continued to violate the law by not passing a budget in over 1,000 days.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- Nice to see a good article finally written... It typically is very one sided here. Thanks for trying to help create some accountability. As something to build on it would be nice to write about the effects of over regulation by the president and congress on banks verse breaking them up and creating more competition. When did there only become 2 solutions bigger corp or bigger government.... The excuse the banks used in the past was they needed to compete gloablly and needed to be bigger... After europe imploads that reason will be gone. Lets bring america back... Competition, hard work, risk taking... Vs too big to fail, govt intrusion and looking to someone else to solve our problems— JL68
Comment removed.- He has yet to ever govern. He truly is an American fraud of "historical" proportions.— kelprod2
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
