“He Was Supposed to be Competent”

I could have added Peggy Noonan’s latest column in my most recent post about the oil spill, but the column deserves a post of its own. Noonan, if you recall, was actually an Obama believer from the right during the campaign. Now, she’s recognizing what many of us were concerned about from the start:

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They’re in one reality, he’s in another.

I don’t want to beat up on Noonan, but Obama had done nothing by 2008 that suggested he would be “in sync with the center.” In fact, much of his record was one of avoidance on key issues. The ones he did vote on, like the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, showed he was as far left as one could be.

Of course, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a competent president. There was certainly reason for doubt, however, and we were among the many who tried to make that case against Obama. What we didn’t want was a weak president, and that is now a concern of Noonan’s:

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It’s not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of “the indispensable nation” be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.

If we want to avoid having a polarizing, weak president, we should avoid electing people with almost no executive experience or voting record.

UPDATE: There is another point that should be made. Noonan suggests the president’s detachment from key issues like the oil spill has been at least partly a political move, but that it has at least partly backfired in this case. I’ve argued that Team Obama basically took the same approach with ObamaCare, and that it wasn’t until the administration calculated that a failure on healthcare reform would severely damage the presidency that Obama put the issue on his shoulders.

There is a need to protect the presidency and keep it strong, and so keeping a president detached from some issues is smart. When it comes to the biggest issues, however, a true leader must step up because, as Noonan writes: “When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way.” A true leader would not take a back seat in a situation of this magnitude in order to pass blame.

Oil Spill, Reasonable Expectations, and Leadership

My first criticism of the Obama administration over the oil spill was the seeming lack of action more than a week after the spill. At that time, the big response was to send in the lawyers and blame BP. Some on both the right and left have been critical, with people like Karl Rove and Chris Matthews coming down hard on Obama. Then there are others like Yuval Levin, who compares the oil spill to Katrina not in terms of the poor response, but in terms of public expectations.

I’m somewhere in the middle. There are two points to keep in mind: 1) We probably don’t know all the important details, and 2) to Levin’s point, the federal government can only do so much. That said, I still believe the federal response was slow and insufficient. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, back in the spotlight, has been asking for an emergency plan to dredge and build new barrier islands, and the federal government has dragged its feet. A lot of work could have also been done before the spill, as a plan was in place to have fire boom available. The plan wasn’t implemented.

Levin’s point is fair, however, and should keep our criticism reasonable. Working in a heavily regulated industry, I know how public expectations can be, and how the political pressures can build up when something goes wrong. The key point Levin makes is that you can rarely, if ever, make any process perfect. The goal is often to make the process as efficient as possible while minimizing risks. We like to think, however, that nothing should go wrong, so when it does, politics come into play as government feels the need to at least appear to be doing something.

In this situation, the politics seem to be of higher importance than actually fixing the problem. This has been evident as President Obama has turned into our plaintiff lawyer in chief, reminding us constantly that BP is to blame and will pay for the damages. That does nothing to help the situation, but it may help deflect some of the blame. Talking about restricting oil production is also not constructive in this situation, and is a mostly political move.

President Obama claims, however, that he’s been on top of the situation from day one. That may be true, but we haven’t seen much in terms of results until today’s announcement about the success of “top kill.” And President Obama hasn’t helped his case. In the early days of the spill, he was out criticizing Wall Street and the Arizona immigration law. Recently, he hosted a big party for the Mexican president, and participated in a campaign event for California Senator Barbara Boxer. As Hugh Hewitt suggested, maybe Jindal could have gotten the president’s attention if he had thrown a fundraiser for Boxer. It’s hard to believe Obama has been sufficiently engaged with all this going on.

I keep reminding people that we’re getting what we elected. President Obama never exhibited much leadership experience, and we’re seeing that no matter how strong he might be behind closed doors or a teleprompter, he’s in over his head when it comes to facilitating a cross-functional response to a disaster. My suggestion: put the politics aside and stop the leak before worrying about liability, and compare BP’s process controls with the industry standards before proposing more regulations.

UPDATE: Engineers are now saying that “top kill” has failed.

Surprise! California Democrats Propose More Tax Increases

This would be laughable if the California Democrats weren’t so obstinate in the face of constant public rejection of these proposals. When the state that issued IOUs for tax returns was desperately trying to pass a budget, Democrats floated tax increases. Voters opposed, and a special election was called in which Democrats tried to sneak in opportunities for more tax increases. The ballot initiatives failed in what was another public rejection of tax increases.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but these Democrats aren’t listening. Even as Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat seems to be in danger (H/T Jen Rubin) and the state is on the verge of fiscal collapse from too much taxing and spending, the Golden State Democrats propose more of the same.

There’s no reason to believe these Democrats will change course, so the only way to solve California’s woes is to get rid of those perpetuating the problem. November can’t come soon enough, and it may be one of the last good chances Californians have to turn it around before their plight becomes really bad.

Effects of the Dependency Agenda

Veronique de Rugy pointed to a very concerning graph that illustrates America’s significant increase in government dependence since 1929. As she notes, the key trend is the rise of government transfers like Social Security and unemployment as a percentage of personal income from 0.9% in 1929 to 17.2% in 2009. That is a staggering jump over an 80-year period, putting the gradual effects of the liberal agenda into context.

The news gets worse when considering the decline of private wages as a share of personal income over the same period. The trends since December 2007 are particularly scary.

This graph highlights two key points. The first is that the big government liberal agenda has had significant impact in creating reliance on government over the long haul. The second is that the trend is currently very strong, and we risk going past the point of no return, whatever that may be.

Democrats Propose New Stimulus

Of course, they’re not calling it a stimulus. The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 is just that, however, regardless of what you want to call it. Keith Hennessey may have an even better name: The Hypocrisy Act of 2010. Hennessey sums it up:

The bill:

• increases infrastructure spending by $26 B over ten years;
• extends a raft of expiring tax provisions, mostly for one year
• provides funding relief for certain employer pension plans;
• raises a bunch of taxes, mostly on businesses and a certain kind of partnership income called “carried interest;”
• extends unemployment insurance benefits, increasing federal spending by $47 B over the next two years;
• increases Medicare payments for doctors for eighteen months at a $63 B cost;
• increases health insurance subsidies for the unemployed (through “COBRA”) by $8 B over the next two years; and
• increases federal Medicaid spending by $24 B for a six-month policy change.

CBO gives us the net budgetary effects of the bill over the 11-year period 2010-2020:

• $40 B net tax increase;
• $174 B spending increase;
• $134 B deficit increase.

The healthcare costs are notable, as they add to the cost of reform even if Democrats pretend they don’t. The Medicare physician payment issue is looking at another temporary fix, as I predicted, and I suspect we’ll be having a similar conversation once this payment runs out.

While the Democrats aren’t listening to the public, Paul Ryan and other Republicans are. How about this proposal to save $1.3 trillion over the next ten years? In November, you can choose which way you want to go.

UPDATE: To look more favorable to the deficit, Democrats are offering a $50 billion decrease in the bill. Which provisions would the Democrats cut? As Keith Hennessey notes:

None.

They simply extended the most expensive provisions for a shorter period of time:

• The new bill extends the unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance benefits through November 2010 rather than through December 2010 in Monday’s version.
• The Medicare “doctors’ fix” would extend through 2011, rather than through 2013 in Tuesday’s version.  (Note:  In Monday’s post I mistakenly wrote that the bill contained an 18-month doctors’ fix.)

This clever budget gimmick is basically what the Democrats did with ObamaCare to pretend the price tag was lower. Doing it again here just means we’ll be revisiting the same Medicare physician payments and other items that much sooner.

Senator Wyden and Bipartisanship

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote an op-ed about bipartisanship at the end of last week that is worth reading. Senator Wyden’s collaborative effort with Republican Senator Bob Bennett (UT) gives him the credibility to pen such an op-ed, and his effort with Bennett on the Healthy Americans Act was respectable. That said, Wyden is suggesting the message from Utah’s primary in which Bennett was ousted with the help of Tea Party opposition is that elected officials should eschew bipartisanship:

The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week’s primaries and Utah’s recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party’s most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob’s party thought that his working with a Democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for Republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose, and vice versa.

Unless Senator Wyden’s definition of bipartisanship is joining in the big government agenda that has sparked the Tea Parties, then he is not getting the Tea Party message. When Senator Wyden equates both Republicans and Democrats for wanting the other side to lose in order to win – like a White Sox fan rooting against the Cubs – he’s conveniently overlooking the facts.

In the case of the healthcare reform debate, the Democrats started out not needing a single vote in either the House or Senate to pass a bill. It didn’t take more than a year to ram something through because Republicans wouldn’t sign on to give cover to moderate Democrats. Rather, it was a liberal push that alienated many in the Democrat party and created bipartisan opposition to the bill.

On top of that, Democrats were doing most of the legislating behind closed doors and without unneeded Republican input. When given an opportunity to present ideas and concerns at the healthcare summit, Republicans presented them and offered areas of common ground. The Democrats were the ones who refused to budge because, as President Obama infamously reminded us, he won.

Wyden has good reason to feel disappointed. The Wyden-Bennett bill would arguably have been a significant improvement over the ObamaCare that passed, and likely would have had some Republican support. In fairness, Wyden is criticizing both sides, but let’s not pretend that the public outrage is over politicians on both sides joining hands in general. People do want bipartisanship, but not for the sake of bipartisanship itself. The agenda and the policy matter, and people don’t like the current agenda and policy. That’s a message that if Wyden and others aren’t getting now, they probably won’t before it’s too late.

Support for Repealing ObamaCare Hits 63%

Rasmussen reports that repeal is at its highest number yet. Maybe that’s because now that we’ve passed it, people are indeed seeing what’s in it, and Nancy Pelosi’s plan is therefore backfiring.

This new report suggesting that the small business tax credit of ObamaCare may actually discourage hiring is unlikely to improve public opinion.

Look at the top of our website for a reminder of who voted for this law, and for ways you can help reverse it.

UPDATE: A new survey shows that 94% of 661 businesses predict that ObamaCare will increase costs (H/T Ed Morrissey). The same survey says:

Eighty-eight percent plan to pass the increases on to employees, and 74 percent anticipate reducing health benefits and programs.

How much worse will public opinion of ObamaCare be if we allow it to be fully implemented?

Obama’s Daniel Pearl Comments

When analyzing what President Obama said at West Point, keep in mind what he didn’t say in his comments about Daniel Pearl, as pointed out by Mark Steyn. President Obama’s description of what happened to Pearl is a reminder of the political correctness that keeps him from honestly addressing the threats we face:

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.

Obama’s remarks about Daniel Pearl are another reminder of how he remains either unwilling or unable to face reality:

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Such remarks render any hawkish speeches by Obama incredible, as these off-the-teleprompter comments remind us what Obama really thinks.

Obama Appeases Russia for Iran Sanctions

In order to secure Russian support for new UN sanctions against Iran, the Obama administration is lifting sanctions on Russia:

The last-minute dealmaking needed to secure Russian support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran became clearer Friday when the Obama administration revealed it had ended sanctions against four Russian entities involved in illicit weapons trade with Iran and Syria since 1999.

U.S. officials also acknowledged that a loophole slipped into the language of the draft Security Council resolution on Iran would exempt a Russian-Iranian missile deal from a proposed ban of major arms sales to the Islamic republic.

The move to lift the Russian sanctions, recorded in Friday’s Federal Register, comes just three days after the United States, Russia and other key powers reached agreement on the draft resolution, which would sanction Iran for violating U.N. demands to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Does anyone seriously believe that Russia is going to support meaningful sanctions against Iran? The latest resolution would exempt the Russian-Iranian missile deal. Not only are we not stopping Iran, but we’re letting Russia of the hook as well.

As President Obama lays out a new national security strategy, it is pretty clear that it will be one of weakness.

Silly moves like this remind me of a video that was out during the 2008 campaign, which I posted at the time:

DC Circuit Court Rules Against Habeas Rights at Bagram

In April of 2009, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that some detainees held at Bagram could file habeas corpus challenges in U.S. courts in what was an extension of the Boumediene ruling. The D.C. Circuit Court has overruled that decision in what is a win for Obama/Bush detention policy. The NYT reports here.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains what could happen next:

The Bagram detainees’ lawyers now have two options: they can ask the full, nine-judge Circuit Court to reconsider Friday’s ruling, or they can ask the Supreme Court to review the case now (or after any further challenge in the Circuit Court is over).  The fact that the panel was unanimous, and that it was composed of judges from across the philosophical spectrum, may make it harder to gain further review of the case.

Ed Morrissey has more, reminding us that the Obama administration had won a stay on Judge Bates’ ruling, and emphasizing that the “theater of war” distinction is key. He also notes that Illinois may have given up on the silly plan to transfer Gitmo detainees to a state facility.