March 16th, 2009
Obama – Broken Promises?
My friend Matt just blogged about how Obama had broken 10 11 promises according to the right wing rag, World Net Daily
Here are the 11 “broken” promises:
- Sunlight Before Signing
- Capital gains tax elimination
- New American jobs tax credit
- Hiatus on 401(k) penalties
- No jobs for lobbyists
- Earmark reform
- Bring troops home in 16 months
- Sign Freedom of Choice Act
- $4,000 college credit
- Transparency
- Signing Statements
Matt also mentioned the “Porkulous Budget”. The following is my response to Matt starting off with my opinion of the term “Porkulous”
Porkulous Budget
Before the last budget is called the “Porkulous” Bill I’d like to know how it compares to past budgets. I’ve heard plenty of people say “but it has 9000 earmarks” which of course, means nothing.
Those 9000 earmarks represent 2% of the budget. Furthermore it doesn’t address how much any of those 9000 actually will provide a lasting and positive gain for not only the area getting them but also for the nation as a whole.
Sadly, we’re never going to get a Federal Govt that actually wants to rescind some of its powers and return them to the states; so we need to be more honestly critical (and not just partisan) about how we evaluate things that the federal govt does. I don’t “think” WDN is baised – it is biased; it’s not a matter of opinion but fact. There is nothing wrong with them being biased, but it is only intellectually honest to admit they are and understand that when you read their articles.
Concerning the Broken Promises
I also agree he has no valid excuse for the “Sunlight Before Signing” broken promise. None of the bills he passed couldn’t have waited 5 days.
I don’t think he has “broken the promise” on removing the capital gains tax. He didn’t say he would do it on the first budget.. I’d say we need to wait until his term is done to judge if this one is broken; at least he is moving in the right direction
While he only gets a short period of time for the New Jobs Credit; he didn’t say it would be part of the stimulus so he still has a chance to follow through with this. Judge him by this time next year on this promise.
Exactly the same with the 401k relief. While it definitely would have made sense for that type of legislation to be in the stimulus package he didn’t say that’s where it would be. If it doesn’t happen by the middle of this year then I’d say he failed on this one.
I’m kind of tired of the “lobbyist” one. He said he wouldn’t hire folks who had lobbied in the prior 2 years I believe. He did hire 1 or 2 who lobbied in the prior 2 years so, yes, technically he broke this one. Of course, he may not have been able to fill those positions with anyone qualified otherwise. This was a stupid promise to make and, I think, impossible to be responsible and not break it. However, in his defense he has done MUCH better than any President I can remember in limiting the number of “active” lobbyists he hired.
Earmark reform; I’ll give him until the next budget before I call this a broken promise. I’m not happy with this budget much but see my prior comment on the 2% thing. I can’t rake him over the coals on this one (yet).
Bring troops home in 16 months – he definitely caved. However, the article is also slightly dishonest (additionally, some combat units would remain in Iraq beyond Obama’s declared August 2010 withdrawal. Rather than returning home, they would simply face reassignment as “advisory training brigades.”) as that can only happen if Iraq agrees to it. Obama didn’t say they would remain there, only that they might if a new agreement is reached.
“The first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.” Ok it hasn’t been his first thing; but I think he has had a few higher items on his priority list. If he doesn’t do it at all then I’d consider his total promise broken, right now I think it is probably just delayed.
$4000 tax credit; again I think we need to wait until his term is done before we can say he didn’t do it. He just hasn’t done it yet. He probably should have included it in the stimulus package.. who knows why it wasn’t there?
Transparency - well, I don’t think he could have been transparent enough to not make this charge occur (and stick). He was stupid to make this promise too because there was no way it would happen. It was equally naieve of anyone to believe it.
Signing statements have also been added to the list. While I think his logic on his recent statements are valid he was a fool for using a signing statement to make his point. He should have just vetoed the damn budget and gotten things cleaned up that way. Even if his signing statement just said, “Kilroy was here” it would have been a huge mistake right after his decree against prior signing statements. (though I was happy to see the decree since it cleaned the slate). Too bad he is already muddying it up again.
Comments
Hmmm, he’s just been in office for 8 weeks….maybe he needs a little time to do the things he has set out to do….it’s a really big job he’s got there and he has to work with so many other people to accomplish anything perhaps we should give him more than 2 months on the job to live up to the unrealistic expectations Americans have of their PResident
Mom
March 16th, 2009
I agree. That was the main point of my posting this. Sorry if I didn’t convey that clearly
Bill
March 16th, 2009
i don’t think these are people’s expectations just partisan accusations. I will worry about how he is doing after a year or so, barring some drama occurring. I think the whole thing is a bit “business as usual”
ted
March 16th, 2009
I agree, I don’t think any rational person who is willing to put their partisanship aside would really find all these faults in Obama; however, sadly, there are a lot of people out there who aren’t willing to put partisianship aside.
Since I saw the article I thought some kind of moderating voice, even if it is just my small one, would help in a minor way to offset the extremist pundits on both side.
I think, far too often, moderate people fail to speak up against the vastly more vocal “representative” chunks of each parties political spectrum. And, quite frankly, I think our entire political process suffers because of it.
If all the blowhards could be drowned out by the combined voices of everyone who is tired of the extremists we would all be better for it.
Bill
March 16th, 2009
Bill,
I’ve let myself get behind in reading blogs. I replied to your comment in the comments of the article you reference. My comment engine won’t let me link right to my comment (arg…one more thing on the list of things you mention). I’ll go ahead and repost it here (I took some liberties with the formatting):
First off, let me say that I’m missing my big screen. My laptop screen isn’t big enough to see all of your comment and this comment I’m writing too. ARG. Hopefully I won’t miss anything…if I do, just let me know.
First off, on most of your points, you make good points. Many of the things (capital gains taxes, school tax credit, etc…) I don’t know that he mentioned a time frame. So, it isn’t exactly fair to start crying foul. However, it would seem to make sense to work those into some sort of legislation given all of the other “stimulus” stuff that is going on. If the time isn’t good now, when will it be good??
As for the others, in my mind, it comes down to general honesty. I was thinking, after I wrote my original post, to make some comment about how we needed to vote for people who were just good honest people. I would have a much higher opinion of a candidate who only said something to the effect of “I don’t know how bad it is, but once I find out, we’ll work out a plan. Here are my guiding principals.” That is a much more honest approach than promising the sky without knowing the true picture.
The rest of it is tied to this, in my opinion. Just as you point out in your last paragraph:
Quote:
—————–
Signing statements have also been added to the list. While I think his logic on his recent statements are valid he was a fool for using a signing statement to make his point. He should have just vetoed the damn budget and gotten things cleaned up that way. Even if his signing statement just said, “Kilroy was here” it would have been a huge mistake right after his decree against prior signing statements.
—————–
If you say no signing statements, then one must stand by that. That’s a good point you made. If you say no earmarks, then no earmarks is the standard. One of my main points I tried to make but for some reason it didn’t get into my article (arg…I must have been interrupted 1/2 way through) was that people (not just presidents…but anyone) needs to think before they speak. They need to consider what their words mean. I don’t mean in the “usual politician way” I mean in the real world.
So, in conclusion….you made some good points (and gave me some things to think about) related to the timing or non-timing of certain promises. I have become disillusioned with just about every politician out there. My judgments of them tend to be very harsh and fast. Hopefully I don’t go easy on one party or the other…both parties are messed up. Just like you pointed out
Quote:
—————–
we’re never going to get a Federal Govt that actually wants to rescind some of its powers and return them to the states
—————–
matt
March 17th, 2009
This perhaps could not be counted as broken promises. I think there might be some reason on those aspects, so let see in long term and we will have clearer idea on what happen.
401kpenalty
February 20th, 2010