THE PREMISE OF THIS ARTICLE CENTERS ON THIS QUESTION, WHY ISN'T OBAMA GETTING A SECOND OPINION BEFORE HE IMPOSES THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS STUDY, HIS PSEUDO BLUEPRINT FOR HEALTH CARE, ON THE AMERICAN PATIENT-WHEN ITS VALIDITY AND RELEVANCE FOR FIXING THE HIGH COST OF HEALTH CARE IS UNDER ATTACK ?
THIS STUDY AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS ON THE PUBLIC ARE BEING DELIBERATELY HIDDEN FROM THE VOTERS- WHILE IT REMAINS THE VERY REAL CORNER-STONE OF OBAMA'S REFORM HEALTH CARE BILL. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS STUDY, INVOLVES DECONSTRUCTING OUR HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM WHICH PERCOLATES BOTH GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE FUNDS. THESE FUNDS AMOUNT TO OVER 1/6 OF THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES SPENT ON HEALTH CARE ISSUES.
PRESENTLY, THIS DARTMOUTH ATLAS STUDY IS BEING CHALLENGED IN THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, BY PETER B. BACH, FOR BOTH ITS OUT-DATED METHODS WHICH IMPACT ITS RESULTS AND ITS ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS. THE LABEL OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY ALONE DOES NOT INSURE THE VALIDITY OF THE STUDY OR ITS RELEVANCE OR APPLICABILITY TO A PROBLEM.
IN ANY CASE, THERE ARE REPUTABLE CHALLENGES TO THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS WHICH ARE BEING IGNORED BY OBAMA. THESE ARGUMENTS CENTER ON THE VALIDITY OF ITS METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS, AS WELL AS, ON HOW A STUDY ON THE DEAD IS APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT TO WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW. WHILE THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS IS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN SECTIONS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS ON HEALTH CARE, THIS STUDY IS BEING CHALLENGED ON BOTH ITS METHODOLOGY, AS WELL AS, ITS RESULTS. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS AN ALMOST UNSEEMLY RUSH TO PASS THIS BILL, WHICH IS AKIN TO A HOUSE BEING BUILT UPON THE SHIFTING SANDS OF THIS ATLAS.
IT IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR AMERICANS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS STUDY HAS NEVER BEEN REFERRED TO BY ITS REAL NAME, BY THIS PRESIDENT IN HIS PUBLIC SPEECHES. IT IS BECOMING PAINFULLY APPARENT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND OBAMA FOR THE MOST PART, KEPT DISCUSSIONS OF THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS HIDDEN FROM THE VIEW OF THE VOTERS, BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE A PUBLIC OUT CRY, IF AMERICANS UNDERSTOOD THE TRUE MANDATES AND RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS ATLAS.
HOWEVER, OBAMA CONSTANTLY BUT OBLIQUELY REFERS TO THIS UN-NAMED STUDY IN HIS SPEECHES, AS THOSE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES WHICH BACKED UP ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HIS HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. HE OFTEN WILL STATE THAT THIS PARTICULAR STUDY ILLUSTRATES THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE QUALITY HEALTH CARE WITH LOWER COSTS IN SOME SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY, IN CONTRAST TO OTHER GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WHERE THE COST IS HIGHER, BUT WHERE SURPRISINGLY THE QUALITY AND OUTCOMES ARE LOW.
THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS THIS: WHY- AFTER THE METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC CRITICS, THE AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY, THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS, HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE CRITICS WITH A CREDIBLE ANSWER TO THESE CHALLENGES. FURTHERMORE, OBAMA HAS NOT EVEN ASKED FOR A SECOND OPINION TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THIS ATLAS ?
FINALLY, CAN AMERICA REALLY AFFORD TO BASE I/6 OF OUR ECONOMY ON A POSSIBLY FALSE OR INVALID SCIENTIFIC STUDY, WITHOUT EVEN ANALYSING THE VALIDITY OF THE CRITICISM OF ITS METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS BY RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC CRITICS ?
SO, JUST WHERE IS THE SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT OBAMA SPEAKS OF, WHEN THIS STUDY, IF FALSE OR FLAWED, WILL IMPERIL THE HEALTH AND LIVES OF THE POOR, THE ELDERLY, THE DISABLED, THE CHRONICALLY ILL, MINORITIES AND WOMEN ?
[ TO ACCESS THE DARTMOUTH ATLAS GOOGLE IN DARTMOUTH ATLAS.ORG ] YOU WILL BE ON THE HOME PAGE. SCROLL DOWN UNTIL YOU REACH THE MAP AND CONTINUE DOWN ABOUT 3 PARAGRAPHS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE UNTIL THE HEADING OF THE PARAGRAPH READS, " Expanding COVERAGE WITHOUT INCREASING SPENDING : DARTMOUTH ATLAS AND WHITE PAPER RECOMMEND COURSE FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. " AT THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THERE IS THE TITLE OF THEIR WHITE PAPER WITH " CLICK HERE " TO ASSESS IT. THE TITLE OF THE WHITE PAPER IS " AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE: IMPROVING QUALITY AND CURBING HEALTH CARE SPENDING: OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONGRESS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. '' CLICK ON THE " CLICK HERE " TO READ IT.
This President, Barack Obama, is attempting to completely and radically over-turn the delivery system of the American Health Care System, to such a degree that it will be unrecognizable to Americans. Additionally, if Obama's Health Care Bill is passed using this particular Draconian blue-print, the Dartmouth Atlas, which is presently being challenged for its outdated and ineffective methodology and erroneous conclusions by numerous distinguished doctors and scientists, most recently by Peter Bach, who recently questioned its findings in The New England Journal of Medicine- then this Atlas, is capable of completely deconstructing the American Health Care system.
Obama has continually cited this questionable study, in all his speeches and meetings, as the way to change our Health Care System by bringing greater Health Care quality care to Americans, while magically lowering costs. Instead, this utilization of the Dartmouth Atlas will completely destroy the American Health Care System.
This is because this Atlas study is so intrinsically flawed, that it will surely eliminate any chance of Americans receiving quality care. Both Americans and their Health Care System will be decimated, by the conclusions & mandates of the Dartmouth Atlas, because of what is becoming increasingly evident, that the Dartmouth Atlas is a self- promoted ideological and poorly executed scientific study, with sub-standard and out-dated methodology and questionable conclusions.
Plus its study of the dead does not deal with the efficiency of the resources to save their lives but rests solely on the cost of the health care resources; therefore, making this study of little relevance to fixing Health Care, making it in the end- a toxic recipe for disaster.
The damage from using the Dartmouth Atlas as the cornerstone on which to build Obama's Health Care Bill will be catastrophic especially to minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics. It will be devastating to women who consistently out-live their husbands or are divorced or single, plunging them into medical poverty, as well as, monetary poverty. It will especially and cruelly impact the poor, the old, the disabled- the physically and medically handicapped, and those with chronic health conditions. It will be crushing to those who have simultaneous chronic diseases at once, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, and cancer.
Just what is this controversial study about ? The Dartmouth Atlas is a scientific study that divides the nation into geographic regions where hospitals that have a certain capacity to handle coronary cases and cancer patients, are rated by looking at patients who died and determining how much the government spent on these patients in the last two years of their lives. The results of the study are based on the size of the Medicare reimbursements which were paid out by the government to various Health Care Providers.
The Atlas which can be accessed by Internet, compares those hospitals which were paid less reimbursements by the government, according to their geographic region, to other hospitals which receive more fund. Receiving more funds is considered as being a poorer reimbursement figure, because the government is paying out more money. According to the Atlas these hospitals which are paid less, often get the same or better results, than those hospitals which caused the government to pay more for the care of their Medicare patients.
However, it is important to note that the subjects of the study are dead, and the data was collected from what was spent on them during their last two years of life. This is a very simplistic description of the study. But the conclusion of this study is also simplistic- that the hospitals that get less money from the government in Medicare reimbursements are better, because they reduced the costs for the government. If only this was the case, once you analyzed the results.
This study, according to its Home Page on the Internet. was created shortly after Hilliary Clinton announced that she was launching a Health Care Bill during the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton. This study that was originated by the authors of it, in preparation for Clinton to adopt and place the Atlas recommendations into her Health Care Bill. Whether Hilliary Clinton even knew this, or would have placed provisions of this study in her Health Care Bill, we may never know.
Would it surprise you to know that the sponsors and co- sponsors of the Atlas are major insurance companies who jumped on this study's band-wagon early in the game ? Their names can be accessed on the Dartmouth Atlas Home page under sponsors and co-sponsors. They included: Athem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Excellus Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They were attracted to the Atlas premise which is the availability of drugs, tests, and medical procedures which is driving up health care costs should be stopped, or to put it simply- less is more. If less utilization of expensive treatment is in the Health Care Bill, than the profits of the insurance companies will go up.
We know that the creation of the Atlas was designed for Clinton to adopt it. What we also know is that the Dartmouth Atlas had an ideological bent- its doctors were indeed hard selling their concept of their scientific results to the government for them to utilize on a national basis. This ideological mantra of the Atlas creates a real problem for real scientists, especially as time goes by.
A scientist in any scientific study should not have a leaning towards the results that he wishes to occur, because if he does, whether consciously or not, those personally desired results- even if false, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know that the Dartmouth Atlas continues to have this ideological bent toward this type of self- promotion, because on their Home Page they have a "white paper, '' with a title exhorting this president to adopt the cost saving measures which are listed in the Dartmouth Atlas.
Another aspect of the Dartmouth Atlas is that exploits fear- which is unusual in a scientific study, because real science informs- it doesn't use scare tactics to persuade. Instead, this Atlas high-lights all of what it calls the adverse events which may occur in a hospital, such as infections, errors on the part of the doctor, complications of surgery, etc. Then it exhorts the doctors to constantly stress these adverse events to these patients, in order for the patient to avoid the high cost test, the expensive operation or that costly hip replacement.
For this purpose, the authors of the Atlas even advocate the creation of books, pamphlets and visual aids as well as extra communication courses for primary doctors to take once they graduate so they can more fully persuade the patient not to agree to any treatment that might be expensive. This is because there are always some pesky adverse event to worry about. The Atlas forgets that even if you walk across that quiet street in a country town there is still the chance that you might be killed. For example, the Atlas repudiates mammograms as being unnecessary, in fact, causing harm to women in the form of- women might worry if they have to check out a false positive. Remember, when this administration floated this trial balloon from the Atlas of " no recommended mammograms for 40 to 50 year old women " because a false positive could cause them to worry, women didn't cringe in fear- instead they became angry because they felt patronized by this recommendation. This gem came right out of the Atlas playbook !
The Atlas was eagerly adopted by Obama and his director of the Budget Peter Orzag, who fell in love with the mandate of the Atlas, when they came across an article in '' The New Yorker, " written on June 23,2009 by Doctor Atul Gawande whose article was entitled, '' The Cost Conundrum Redux ." He wrote about 2 Texan cities, one in Mc Allen, Texas with the second highest Medicare reimbursement rate in the nation, $ 14,946 per enrollee and poor health care outcomes, and a nearby town, EL Paso, with lower costs, $7,504 per enrollee and supposedly better outcomes.
Obama was so enthralled with this quick, easy, and cheap solution to his health care program that he made his staff read the Atlas study. The Atlas stated that by carefully following its precepts, you could shave off 30% off of Medicare costs, thereby we constantly hear the claims this president is making, that he can cut 500 billion dollars off of Medicare, because this Atlas promotes the concept that health care treatments, especially expensive ones, are harmful to you, and are unnecessary to solve your Health Care needs; therefore, the rationing of these treatments is wonderful- in the end -it will save your life.
The chief premise of the article was that it was greedy doctors who wanted to fill up a big supply of empty hospital beds quickly in Mc Allen, Texas that drove up costs there. Critics attacked the methods of the Atlas, for using an old tool, the mean income of zip codes which comprise an area of about 30,000 people to determine the socio-economic standing of the enrollees instead of the more modern block or tract numbers that cover an area of 2,000 to 4,000 individuals which gives you a more realistic idea of the typical patient's mean income. These critics also contended that the use of the old tool, the zip codes, threw off the numbers in the results by a range of 30% to 50%. These numbers in effect negated the original conclusions of this Atlas study.
They also pointed out that the patients in Mc Allen who did cost Medicare more were poorer; they had a history of not having previous Health Care; they had no social support system to help them when they returned home; and they were sicker as they had a greater percentage of serious illness. Also of importance was these patients also had a greater number of simultaneous illnesses presenting, such as a patient with cancer who also had diabetes, and heart disease.In addition, the stage of the illness, for example, in breast cancer was not listed. This factor became important since the mildest form, stage 1, may have greater numbers of patients who have the disease, while the death rate is less, while stage 4- the most deadly stage, has the reverse scenario. These were just a few variables that seemed to be ignored and not given weight in the discussion by Gawande the promoter of the Atlas or the authors of the Atlas itself. these authors included: Elliot S. Fisher, David C. Goodman, John E. Wennberg, Kristen K. Bronner, Johnathan S. Skinner, James N. Weinstein, and Jason M. Southerland.
Why should we be distrustful of this Alas ? Because of claims of over use of expensive treatments, the Atlas is railing against using several types of treatments and operations, especially types of coronary operations, stints and pace-makers, teaching hospitals, hospices, hospital admissions, expensive drugs for cancer, using medical specialists, hip and knee replacements, CAT-SCANS, MRI tests, mammograms at certain ages, tests for prostrate disease, etc. These are several reasons why Americans would not want to use this Atlas as the foundation to build our comprehensive Health Care Law upon, without even looking at the criticisms of the validity of the Atlas itself.
But it is almost impossible to ignore this latest and most recent criticism in " The New York Times, " in the section titled, " Money and Policy " written on February 17, 2010, by Gardiner Harris. The title of this article is, " Report Cited by Obama on Hospitals Is Criticized. " The article points out the criticism of both methods and conclusions of the Atlas by Peter B. Bach who wrote a succinct analysis of the flaws in the Atlas, in The New England Journal of Medicine on February 17, 2009, in an article sardonically titled, " A Map To Bad Policy. ''
As Doctor Bach succinctly stated it, '' We are about to embark on a huge transformation of our health care system. If we start with a bunch of flawed measures, it will be as devastating as putting in the wrong coordinates before a moonshot. "
Furthermore, Dr. Bach challenged the findings of the authors of the Atlas among which were Dr. Wennberg and Dr. Fisher by attacking the very concept of the Atlas, as well as, its methods. The Atlas examined in the Mc Allen versus El Paso study contends that it was the mere availability of hospital beds which greedy doctors attempted to fill, which then determined whether Mc Allen used more Medicare medical resources, which resulted in Medicare paying out larger reimbursements to health providers, than El Paso during the last 2 years of these patients' lives. The Atlas then looked at the hospital during the last 2 years holding the assumption that that particular hospital controlled most of that patient's care.
According to Dr. Bach, that assumption is false, because care could occur outside that hospital in another hospital, or outside that hospital in varying situations for example, at home, or in a hospice. Bach also felt that hospitals can influence the follow-up care, but not all of it. This is important, since lack of continuous and effective follow-up care causes re-admission to hospitals and drives up costs. Often frail, elderly patients do not follow doctor's instructions, nor do they have a living spouse, care-giver, or relative nearby who will insure that they take their meds, or who will call the doctor if a symptom re-occurs or worsens, or makes sure that they follow dietary and exercise instructions.
Bach also challenges the assumption, that greedy doctors for the sake of their own profit, push patients to fill up those empty hospital beds. Bach has estimated that only 2o% of U.S. physicians have a financial connection with a hospital- which leaves 80% who would not have a financial incentive to fill these beds and use other health care resources. Plus hospices, nursing homes, home health agencies and in-patient facilities that don't handle acute care patients serve many hospitals, so there is not any singe hospital that has a financial relationship over these institutions, or one that would be so powerful that it would have exclusive control over follow up care of one of their patients.
Bach also challenges the methods of the Atlas. He challenges the concept of efficiency of health care which the Atlas holds. According to Bach, to ascertain true efficiency, one must ask the question, " Are health care resources used to get improved health, weighing both health care resources consumed and outcomes ? Yet the Atlas only uses those health care resources which were used, such as hospital admissions, or cancer drugs. This boils down to the Dartmouth Atlas expressing concern over cost alone.
Bach uses this example to illustrate his point, 20 patients who are severely ill are divided between hospital A, and hospital B, each with 10 patients. Hospital A gives each patient a $1 pill and these pills save the lives of 5 patients at hospital A. Hospital B does not give out these pills and all 10 die, but this hospital has $0 cost. According to Bach, the Atlas would determine that hospital B, the one with 10 dead, was more efficient because it had less cost. Bach's bottom line is both high and low performing hospitals in the Atlas use some health resources wisely and some of them poorly. We should be concentrating on how effective these health care resources are utilized at all hospitals, to determine their efficiency, instead of determining efficiency solely on costs.
Bach also makes a point that some hospitals take sicker patients than others. For example a stage 4 breast cancer patient is sicker than a stage 1 breast cancer patient. On the other hand, a patient with only diabetes, is less sick than one who has that same disease plus cancer, and heart disease. For example, a patient 65 years or older in an average hospital has an average risk of death of 15%. In a hospital with a status better than an average hospital with a 10 percentile, the risk of death is only 6%, but if you jump to the 90 percentile range, the risk jumps up to a 22% risk of death.
In conclusion, looking at the analyisis of the Dartmouth Atlas through the eyes of Doctor Bach and numerous other scientists who have serious misgivings about using this Atlas as the blue-print for the complete over-haul of our Health Care system, Americans must feel a sense of disbelief, disgust, and despair. It is apparent that the Atlas is inherently flawed, and not applicable to increasing quality outcomes, while lowering costs.
The Atlas is not concerned at determining how to use health care resources in the most efficient manner- it is concerned with butchering costs- and at that, it will suceed, if Obama's health care bill does become law. The people who will be most hurt are the elderly, the poor, the disabled, women, and minorities. Read the white paper of the Dartmouth Atlas, and the article by Peter B. Back, dated February 17, 2010, in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled, ''A Map To Bad Policy. '' Once you are informed with the facts, call your Congressman and demand a second opinion on your Congressman voting yes on passing Obama's Health Care Bill, until every section culled from the Datmouth Atlas is removed from it, which ultimately means starting from scratch. With it's blueprint from the Darthmouth Atlas permeating this bill, if it is passed, it will surely be the biggest legislative mistake in this century, as well as, the greatest problem that you and your family may ever face.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Obama's Biggest Scam/Tries to Pass Health Care Using Pseudo Medical Blueprint of Dartmouth Atlas/ Validity Disputed by New England Journal of Medicine
Sunday, February 28, 2010
How the Job's Bill Was Gutted Deliberately by the Obama Administration while They Spend All their Time & Money on Health Care
After spending an entire year plus 2 months focusing his attention on his first priority, Health Care, Obama is clearly demonstrating that even now, that job creation which is the country and Americans' first priority, is virtually being ignored. Again, this president is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. All of Obama's and this administration's time, energy, focus, and money again are being spent on his massive Health Care Initiative. Yes, there was the 787 billion dollar stimulus, where Obama could check off the " the president created a Jobs Bill, " but the stimulus was deliberately not designed as a job creation tool; instead, it was primarily designed, especially the last third of it, as a separate fund where monies were specifically set aside to carry out his Health Care and Energy Programs.
In effect, the stimulus was gutted to free up the Health Care and Energy Bills from extra costs. This was done by using the stimulus, which was created under the guise of a job creation tool, to absorb part of these programs massive costs, such as those that would be found in the Health Care and Energy Initiatives. These initiatives would be even more expensive - if these Energy and Health Care Programs and their costs were in these massive bills, where they really belong.
We have seen this Obama game played before- when he made a deal with physicians to give them 250 billion dollars for Medicare reimbursements in a separate bill, instead of putting it where it belongs, in a massive Health Care Bill.
Another accounting trick, was to collect taxes or funds for the Health Care Initiative for the first ten years and only deliver benefits for 6 years in order to claim that Health Care was not causing a deficit, when the Congressional Budget Office rated or scored the bill. There are numerous other similar accounting tricks, but the most egregious one, is the deliberate gutting of the stimulus to provide funds for Health Care and Energy Initiatives.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist, insisted that the 787 billion dollar stimulus was too small, when he assumed most of it was going to job creation. He would have been stunned if he knew that large portions of it were being siphoned out for purposes which were not immediately targeted for job creation.
For example, over 36% of the first third of the stimulus, went to individuals in the form of less money being taken out of the weekly pay check, the amount being equal per day, to a cup of cheap, plain coffee in a diner. Americans certainly would have been happy to fore-go that amount, if they knew it instead was going to small business job creation, which is responsible for over 70% of all jobs in the economy. Only 1% went to that small business job creation, and only roughly 4% went to repair infrastructure, a known job creator which also produces corollary jobs in the private sector.
If the first third of the stimulus went to these tax relief measures, and the last third went to provide funds in the future for Health Care and Energy, the second third of the stimulus was at least spent rationally, as it was allocated for food stamps, Cobra medical health insurance, and unemployment insurance for individuals, and help for state governments to balance their budgets.
But what happens when you foolishly fritter away 2/3 of the stimulus ? The answer is simple - it fails to produce jobs, especially created jobs, and jobs in the private sector; or jobs that are permanent rather than temporary. Also, as you only get one [ trillion dollar shot which is 787 billion dollars plus interest] at any program like the stimulus, as the public only allows you one drink at that well.
Therefore, the public are so outraged at the failure of this stimulus, that the administration cannot even name those funds which they are now setting aside for small business and job creation as another stimulus, but are artfully using a synonym, calling the new minuscule program-a Jobs Bill. But this administration is still making the same old mistakes. Again, we are still talking about and focusing on Health Care. Again, we are gutting funds for job creation. Again, we are giving only the crumbs off this nation's table to both the poor and the middle class.
When the idea of a Jobs Bill came up as part of the response to the Massachusetts debacle and the outcries of the public to create jobs in 2010, an effort arose to address the problem. The House reacted quickly with a $185 billion dollar plan to create jobs and help small businesses. The Senate produced a very modest Jobs Bill of 85 billion dollars- less than 1/2 of what the House proposed. However, this relatively small Jobs Bill in the Senate revived a great deal of bi- partisan support in that body and its passage seemed certain, as even Republicans were happy with it.
Then along came Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader of the Senate, who decided to butcher this bill cutting away not the fat, but unfortunately the muscle of the bill- leaving something less than even bare bones remaining. What did Reid drop ? He removed over 70 billion dollars that were geared to help small businesses hire workers in the form of tax breaks for them.It stripped away unemployment insurance -since it has expired at the federal level- leaving many families destitute. It ravaged extension of Cobra medical insurance for the unemployed. It took away reimbursement dollars for physicians away from these doctors who treat Medicaid and Medicare patients, insuring their are even less of these doctors who be willing to treat the old and the poor.
Evidently, men like Harry Reid and Obama, and this administration thought that these were frivolous extravagances that were being lavished on the poor and needy, because they have a jobs and a gold -plated insurance policy already, plush a cushy safety net to protect them if any trouble in their lives arose. Perhaps Obama, Reid and the Obama administration wanted to spend their time and energy on what was really important to them, Health Care, their ticket to retaining their own jobs in 2010 and 2012 ?
In any case the bare bones Jobs Bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 70 to 28 with the support of a few Republicans, who complained along with many Democrats that it wasn't comprehensive enough. For example, both of these two Republicans, Senator Scott Brown and Senator Snowe stated, " That it didn't go far enough. " The House's take on the Senate Bill said it all, with this descriptor- " puny.'' " Puny " indeed !
This tiny weeny bill had 2 provisions a---exempt businesses when they employ a new worker from paying the 6.2 % Social Security tax up until December, and in addition, these businesses will get an additional one thousand dollars tax credit if the worker remains a year. b--- it also extends a tax credit for businesses buying new equipment. Congress predicted this bill predicted might produce 250,000 jobs.
If anyone wonders what possessed Harry Reid to butcher the Jobs Bill during this time, we can look at his own words for analysis. Reid said he wanted to concentrate on core elements, so obviously he doesn't believe that unemployment insurance and Cobra Health insurance for destitute unemployed workers fit that core element category, when their unemployment insurance has already expired by the end of February.
Reid also said that he wanted to follow this bill with other small bills with unemployment insurance for these unemployed, as well as, Cobra Health Insurance for them. But when was Reid going to do this , since again their unemployment insurance expired the last day in February ? Shouldn't this have been in the first Jobs Bill passed, instead of tax breaks passed for small businesses ? Where was Reid's priorities ? Or shouldn't Reid have kept the first bill of 85 billion dollars intact that included unemployment insurance ? Again, where was Reid's priorities ?
The real reason that Reid and the Obama administration are playing Russian Roulette with the Job's Bill is that these men, both Reid and Obama, are suddenly getting " fiscal religion. " a--- Therefore, they are terrified of being accused of running up huge deficits by the Republicans. This is a ridiculous excuse to decimate the Senate's 85 billion dollar bill to a mere 15 billion dollar bill , because of all of their previous Democratic huge spending bills which have already passed or those that are now a work in progress. It is akin to shutting the barn doors, after all the horses have already fled. So Reid and Obama have obviously short-changed the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed ? Did we ever Obama and Reid see them this concerned, when they gave the big banks 23 trillion dollars in loans and guarantees ?
In addition, this is part of the Reid and Obama strategy which is b--- to put out a few small bills out on "job creation '' every few weeks, so that Republicans, if they don't sign on to them, can be categorized by Democrats as being against the public's interest to create jobs. Obama is either playing with Reid directly on his issue- or he is indirectly involved, because although Obama has insisted jobs is his first priority, he is failing to monitor those to whom he directs tasks, such as Harry Reid. Therefore, the poor, the middle class and the unemployed have to suffer- since they are only political pawns to show up Republicans.
Although Reid had claimed he was going to address the unemployment problem shortly, a vote to extend unemployment insurance for a short time in the Senate was halted by a Republican, Jim Bunning, who is not running for re-election in his home state, Kentucky. He is using a procedural trick, a filibuster, to block this extension because according to this Republican Senator the extension of unemployment insurance is not funded. Bunning wants to use the stimulus money to pay for unemployment insurance. However, those funds are already allotted for Obama's pet projects. Therefore these funds won't be released, since the money has already been committed. This has shocked both the Democrats and Republicans.The Republicans have always considered Bunning a loose cannon and are aghast at this trick he has employed. Bunning deserves all the arrows shot at him.
But the bottom line is, if Harry Reid had left the $85 Billion dollar jobs bill alone, a bill which did include the unemployment insurance for the unemployed, we would not have this problem now. The public should also remember that we, all Americans, are just political pawns in a political chess game Obama & Reid are playing with Republicans. We, the American people, can remedy this parody by making sure that both Obama and Harry Reid lose big in 2010 and 2012. Hopefully, both these men will lose their jobs. But perhaps their sole consolation will be, that unemployment insurance will finally be available for them at that time, when they receive their " pink slip " from the American people.
In effect, the stimulus was gutted to free up the Health Care and Energy Bills from extra costs. This was done by using the stimulus, which was created under the guise of a job creation tool, to absorb part of these programs massive costs, such as those that would be found in the Health Care and Energy Initiatives. These initiatives would be even more expensive - if these Energy and Health Care Programs and their costs were in these massive bills, where they really belong.
We have seen this Obama game played before- when he made a deal with physicians to give them 250 billion dollars for Medicare reimbursements in a separate bill, instead of putting it where it belongs, in a massive Health Care Bill.
Another accounting trick, was to collect taxes or funds for the Health Care Initiative for the first ten years and only deliver benefits for 6 years in order to claim that Health Care was not causing a deficit, when the Congressional Budget Office rated or scored the bill. There are numerous other similar accounting tricks, but the most egregious one, is the deliberate gutting of the stimulus to provide funds for Health Care and Energy Initiatives.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist, insisted that the 787 billion dollar stimulus was too small, when he assumed most of it was going to job creation. He would have been stunned if he knew that large portions of it were being siphoned out for purposes which were not immediately targeted for job creation.
For example, over 36% of the first third of the stimulus, went to individuals in the form of less money being taken out of the weekly pay check, the amount being equal per day, to a cup of cheap, plain coffee in a diner. Americans certainly would have been happy to fore-go that amount, if they knew it instead was going to small business job creation, which is responsible for over 70% of all jobs in the economy. Only 1% went to that small business job creation, and only roughly 4% went to repair infrastructure, a known job creator which also produces corollary jobs in the private sector.
If the first third of the stimulus went to these tax relief measures, and the last third went to provide funds in the future for Health Care and Energy, the second third of the stimulus was at least spent rationally, as it was allocated for food stamps, Cobra medical health insurance, and unemployment insurance for individuals, and help for state governments to balance their budgets.
But what happens when you foolishly fritter away 2/3 of the stimulus ? The answer is simple - it fails to produce jobs, especially created jobs, and jobs in the private sector; or jobs that are permanent rather than temporary. Also, as you only get one [ trillion dollar shot which is 787 billion dollars plus interest] at any program like the stimulus, as the public only allows you one drink at that well.
Therefore, the public are so outraged at the failure of this stimulus, that the administration cannot even name those funds which they are now setting aside for small business and job creation as another stimulus, but are artfully using a synonym, calling the new minuscule program-a Jobs Bill. But this administration is still making the same old mistakes. Again, we are still talking about and focusing on Health Care. Again, we are gutting funds for job creation. Again, we are giving only the crumbs off this nation's table to both the poor and the middle class.
When the idea of a Jobs Bill came up as part of the response to the Massachusetts debacle and the outcries of the public to create jobs in 2010, an effort arose to address the problem. The House reacted quickly with a $185 billion dollar plan to create jobs and help small businesses. The Senate produced a very modest Jobs Bill of 85 billion dollars- less than 1/2 of what the House proposed. However, this relatively small Jobs Bill in the Senate revived a great deal of bi- partisan support in that body and its passage seemed certain, as even Republicans were happy with it.
Then along came Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader of the Senate, who decided to butcher this bill cutting away not the fat, but unfortunately the muscle of the bill- leaving something less than even bare bones remaining. What did Reid drop ? He removed over 70 billion dollars that were geared to help small businesses hire workers in the form of tax breaks for them.It stripped away unemployment insurance -since it has expired at the federal level- leaving many families destitute. It ravaged extension of Cobra medical insurance for the unemployed. It took away reimbursement dollars for physicians away from these doctors who treat Medicaid and Medicare patients, insuring their are even less of these doctors who be willing to treat the old and the poor.
Evidently, men like Harry Reid and Obama, and this administration thought that these were frivolous extravagances that were being lavished on the poor and needy, because they have a jobs and a gold -plated insurance policy already, plush a cushy safety net to protect them if any trouble in their lives arose. Perhaps Obama, Reid and the Obama administration wanted to spend their time and energy on what was really important to them, Health Care, their ticket to retaining their own jobs in 2010 and 2012 ?
In any case the bare bones Jobs Bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 70 to 28 with the support of a few Republicans, who complained along with many Democrats that it wasn't comprehensive enough. For example, both of these two Republicans, Senator Scott Brown and Senator Snowe stated, " That it didn't go far enough. " The House's take on the Senate Bill said it all, with this descriptor- " puny.'' " Puny " indeed !
This tiny weeny bill had 2 provisions a---exempt businesses when they employ a new worker from paying the 6.2 % Social Security tax up until December, and in addition, these businesses will get an additional one thousand dollars tax credit if the worker remains a year. b--- it also extends a tax credit for businesses buying new equipment. Congress predicted this bill predicted might produce 250,000 jobs.
If anyone wonders what possessed Harry Reid to butcher the Jobs Bill during this time, we can look at his own words for analysis. Reid said he wanted to concentrate on core elements, so obviously he doesn't believe that unemployment insurance and Cobra Health insurance for destitute unemployed workers fit that core element category, when their unemployment insurance has already expired by the end of February.
Reid also said that he wanted to follow this bill with other small bills with unemployment insurance for these unemployed, as well as, Cobra Health Insurance for them. But when was Reid going to do this , since again their unemployment insurance expired the last day in February ? Shouldn't this have been in the first Jobs Bill passed, instead of tax breaks passed for small businesses ? Where was Reid's priorities ? Or shouldn't Reid have kept the first bill of 85 billion dollars intact that included unemployment insurance ? Again, where was Reid's priorities ?
The real reason that Reid and the Obama administration are playing Russian Roulette with the Job's Bill is that these men, both Reid and Obama, are suddenly getting " fiscal religion. " a--- Therefore, they are terrified of being accused of running up huge deficits by the Republicans. This is a ridiculous excuse to decimate the Senate's 85 billion dollar bill to a mere 15 billion dollar bill , because of all of their previous Democratic huge spending bills which have already passed or those that are now a work in progress. It is akin to shutting the barn doors, after all the horses have already fled. So Reid and Obama have obviously short-changed the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed ? Did we ever Obama and Reid see them this concerned, when they gave the big banks 23 trillion dollars in loans and guarantees ?
In addition, this is part of the Reid and Obama strategy which is b--- to put out a few small bills out on "job creation '' every few weeks, so that Republicans, if they don't sign on to them, can be categorized by Democrats as being against the public's interest to create jobs. Obama is either playing with Reid directly on his issue- or he is indirectly involved, because although Obama has insisted jobs is his first priority, he is failing to monitor those to whom he directs tasks, such as Harry Reid. Therefore, the poor, the middle class and the unemployed have to suffer- since they are only political pawns to show up Republicans.
Although Reid had claimed he was going to address the unemployment problem shortly, a vote to extend unemployment insurance for a short time in the Senate was halted by a Republican, Jim Bunning, who is not running for re-election in his home state, Kentucky. He is using a procedural trick, a filibuster, to block this extension because according to this Republican Senator the extension of unemployment insurance is not funded. Bunning wants to use the stimulus money to pay for unemployment insurance. However, those funds are already allotted for Obama's pet projects. Therefore these funds won't be released, since the money has already been committed. This has shocked both the Democrats and Republicans.The Republicans have always considered Bunning a loose cannon and are aghast at this trick he has employed. Bunning deserves all the arrows shot at him.
But the bottom line is, if Harry Reid had left the $85 Billion dollar jobs bill alone, a bill which did include the unemployment insurance for the unemployed, we would not have this problem now. The public should also remember that we, all Americans, are just political pawns in a political chess game Obama & Reid are playing with Republicans. We, the American people, can remedy this parody by making sure that both Obama and Harry Reid lose big in 2010 and 2012. Hopefully, both these men will lose their jobs. But perhaps their sole consolation will be, that unemployment insurance will finally be available for them at that time, when they receive their " pink slip " from the American people.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Obama's Health Care Summit Reveals Irreconcilable Differences with Republicans on Feb.25, 2010 / Bottom Line- It's Theatre of the Absurd
Preview of Health Care Summit
While millions of Americans are terrified that their unemployment insurance will run out in a matter of days- the end of February, unless Congress passes a bill that will re-institute it until the end of 2010, and while the despairing unemployed send out their 600 + resume out to yet another employer to be summarily rejected, our clueless president is still focused on polishing his resume and placing the crown jewel of Health Care in his personal resume packet. In addition, Obama is already leaking this big story out to to the blog, "Politico '' that he has plans to run for a re-election bid in 2012.
To accomplish this re-election goal, Obama's own, instead of the nation's, Obama has invited Republicans to a 6 hour summit to be televised live, in what seems to be a repeat of a verbal '' dueling banjos '' we saw in that retro movie, "Deliverance. " Obama, the quintessential, "all talk and no action president," hopes he can out talk, out maneuver, and out think, the Republicans through Acting 101 posturing, complete with airy emotional platitudes, sarcastic asides, and heart wrenching personal examples of suffering endured by those without Health Care insurance given by him and his colleagues.
He is taking this course, because he knows that unless he produces a big win in the signature issue- Health Care, on which he has already spent 1 year and 2 months, there is a good chance that Democrats will be decimated in the polls in 2010, and also Obama's bid for re-election will be seriously endangered.
If Republicans, Independents, and even the public at large believed that after the crushing blow to Obama by the Massachusetts victory, where a Republican won the Ted Kennedy seat which was held by Democrats for 60 years, the voters believed that Obama learned his lessons and would pivot as Clinton did to the centre. At the State of the Union Speech, Obama did give lip service to to centrist issues as a ploy. But at the same time he implied that he never would abandon his extremely Progressive agenda including his Health Care and Energy Initiatives.
What Obama is bringing to that summit table is the same old Health Care Senate Bill which was rejected by American public before, and attacked by Republicans and Independents. However, these facts don't seem to upset Obama, who is planning to pass this bill through the reconciliation process, immediately after he shows up the Republican Party as the party of no ideas, or else extremely inferior ideas, compared to his own ideas- during this Health Care marathon.
The Democratic home-field that the Republicans are playing on, is the one where Obama is the referee, and where this referee has already made his decision long before the parties even meet. The Republicans already are aware of the ruse but are forced to attend this show, if they don't want to be labeled as '' the party of no. "
Hence we can label this " dog and pony show " as " Theatre of the Absurd. " Too bad the public will be forced to sit through this debacle for 6 to 7 hours- with nothing gained except "self serving sound bites '' provided for cable news. For the astute viewer this theatrical show adds insult to injury- since all the oxygen has again been sucked out of the air, on what really matters to the public- job creation and the fragile economy.
Worst yet, this the exact Health Care Bill voters have already rejected. This same sorry piece of legislation which is being re-cycled again, reminds Americans of that existential play, where we, like the play's trapped characters, continually re-live the same hellish day over and over again in, '' No Exit. '' For movie lovers, they can reference an entirely different story, but with the same concept, which is found in the movie, " Groundhog Day."
The Health Care Summit Show at Blair House
If you watched this parody of political maneuvering, at its best, you sat through 6 1/2 hours of "theatre of the absurd. " The inherent problem with this debate was that trouble has already erupted between the public and Obama, as the voter has already seen his Health Care product, and they have already endured his Health Care process- and collectively they had said no to all of it. Therefore they wonder, why is Obama putting on this American Charade again ?
Obama is playing this political chess game for these reasons:
1---Obama wants to show the public that Republicans have no answers on Health Care issue and if they do, their ideas are certainly inferior to those of his plans.
2---Obama also wants to depict the Republican Party as the Party of Obstruction- in short- the party of " no. "
3---Obama wants the people to know that the cries from critics that he was not transparent, because he did not keep his promise to transmit all of the Health Care proceedings on C-SPAN, because as some implied, he wanted to carry on secret deals with Democrats in the Senate and the House in order to barter for their votes to pass his Health Care Bill- were untrue. To emphasize this point, he is live on television, showing that he is indeed transparent with this 6 to 7 hour summit on Health Care.
4---Obama wants the voters who have criticized Washington because of gridlock and lack of bi-partisanship between the two parties, to see that he is post-partisan, because he is hosting this event where he has allowed every one to express their ideas regardless of their party affiliation.
5--- Obama and the Democrats want to show that there is very little day-light between them and their opponents, the Republicans, because they wish to illustrate, that they, the Democrats, have already accommodated the Republicans by including their amendments and ideas in their bills, and that they are receptive at this summit, to accept any original idea they might have and include it as an amendment in the final Health Care bill. Still, Obama has implied through the nebulous manner in which he speaks, for Republicans not to take his statement as definitive.
In regard to the first three points which Obama had on his "to do summit list, " 1--- the Republicans have no ideas; 2--- they are obstructionists; 3--- that Obama is transparent and pursued no secret deals, Obama has fared terribly on these points.
For example, in regard to point 3- the public is already fed up with Congressional secret deals Obama made with Senators in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida. Now all of the senators and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska have these same breaks like Nelson had originally. Initially, his state did not have to pay Medicaid for perpetuity. Also, now all parties have deals like the unions, who would not have to pay tax on their Cadillac Plans until 2018. Presently, everybody else with a Cadillac plan are also excluded from paying taxes until 2018.
But these two corrections which were made by Obama, in order to remove the 2 most egregious secret deals that haunted his party with public outrage, came with a big cost. The elimination of these two deals substantially increases the over-all cost of Obama's final Health Care Bill, both in the first decade, as well as, over the second decade where the Health Care cost curve will now go up, instead of down.
Surprisingly all secret deals were not taken off the table when the public, especially Independents, was even more upset by the process of the Health Care Bill than the product. Obama has kept the Louisiana deal he made with the Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, and the deal he made with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who in a secret deal, unlike all of the rest of the 49 states, gets to keep his state's Medicare Advantage. This last point was brought up by John Mc Cain, who when he challenged the president on this point, about the unsavory special deals the president had made with several Democratic Senators, was answered sharply by Obama and summarily dismissed.
Earlier, Senator Mc Cain and Obama both got into a sharp exchange over the special deal Obama made with '' big Pharma " to prevent Health Care consumers from buying their drugs from Canada, because of the the president's involvement in negotiating with the drug companies to lower drug costs 10% over 10 years in trade- for this Canadian provision . Obama testily responded that Mc Cain was bringing up the past and this fact was not constructive to solving the problem at hand. During the remainder of Senator Mc Cain's statement, a visibly angry Obama dismissed him by not looking at Mc Cain as he spoke, instead turning the pages of the document before him.
When we examine point 1- that the Republicans had no new ideas or 2- that they were obstructionists Obama lost credibility- because Republicans were knowledgeable and well prepared. Instead Republicans were very impressive. For example, on the Republican side the first speaker was Republican Lamar Alexander who stated that premiums would go up in the Obama Health Care Plan for individuals who had insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Also outstanding was Representative Paul Ryan, who very impressively demonstrated that the Senate Health Care Bill would add to the deficit, and would not lower the cost curve in the short term as well as in the long term. Representative Eric Cantor, the Minority Whip, also was up to speed, with his huge copy of the Health Care Bill sitting there on the table before him as a visual.
Republicans who were doctors such as Senators Coburn and Barrasso also appeared sensitive to the problems of ordinary Americans. They came up with creative solutions to reduce fraud, such as sending in an under-cover patient to see if there was false billing by their physician, and suggested that 1/3 of Medicare is riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse, and for Congress to focus on ridding Medicare of this fraud.
Republicans suggested competition across state lines, tort reform, and Health Care Pools to service patients who had pre-existing conditions-giving rise to those watching them to see that Republicans do have ideas, many of them good. Many ideas were coming from the Republicans who were also doctors. These Republicans were not seen in the image that they were cast in by Obama- as the party of no, or that they were uninformed, or that they had no ideas. In the end- if Obama wanted to show that Republicans had no ideas, no plan, were the party of no, or that they were obstructionists, he failed miserably.
While millions of Americans are terrified that their unemployment insurance will run out in a matter of days- the end of February, unless Congress passes a bill that will re-institute it until the end of 2010, and while the despairing unemployed send out their 600 + resume out to yet another employer to be summarily rejected, our clueless president is still focused on polishing his resume and placing the crown jewel of Health Care in his personal resume packet. In addition, Obama is already leaking this big story out to to the blog, "Politico '' that he has plans to run for a re-election bid in 2012.
To accomplish this re-election goal, Obama's own, instead of the nation's, Obama has invited Republicans to a 6 hour summit to be televised live, in what seems to be a repeat of a verbal '' dueling banjos '' we saw in that retro movie, "Deliverance. " Obama, the quintessential, "all talk and no action president," hopes he can out talk, out maneuver, and out think, the Republicans through Acting 101 posturing, complete with airy emotional platitudes, sarcastic asides, and heart wrenching personal examples of suffering endured by those without Health Care insurance given by him and his colleagues.
He is taking this course, because he knows that unless he produces a big win in the signature issue- Health Care, on which he has already spent 1 year and 2 months, there is a good chance that Democrats will be decimated in the polls in 2010, and also Obama's bid for re-election will be seriously endangered.
If Republicans, Independents, and even the public at large believed that after the crushing blow to Obama by the Massachusetts victory, where a Republican won the Ted Kennedy seat which was held by Democrats for 60 years, the voters believed that Obama learned his lessons and would pivot as Clinton did to the centre. At the State of the Union Speech, Obama did give lip service to to centrist issues as a ploy. But at the same time he implied that he never would abandon his extremely Progressive agenda including his Health Care and Energy Initiatives.
What Obama is bringing to that summit table is the same old Health Care Senate Bill which was rejected by American public before, and attacked by Republicans and Independents. However, these facts don't seem to upset Obama, who is planning to pass this bill through the reconciliation process, immediately after he shows up the Republican Party as the party of no ideas, or else extremely inferior ideas, compared to his own ideas- during this Health Care marathon.
The Democratic home-field that the Republicans are playing on, is the one where Obama is the referee, and where this referee has already made his decision long before the parties even meet. The Republicans already are aware of the ruse but are forced to attend this show, if they don't want to be labeled as '' the party of no. "
Hence we can label this " dog and pony show " as " Theatre of the Absurd. " Too bad the public will be forced to sit through this debacle for 6 to 7 hours- with nothing gained except "self serving sound bites '' provided for cable news. For the astute viewer this theatrical show adds insult to injury- since all the oxygen has again been sucked out of the air, on what really matters to the public- job creation and the fragile economy.
Worst yet, this the exact Health Care Bill voters have already rejected. This same sorry piece of legislation which is being re-cycled again, reminds Americans of that existential play, where we, like the play's trapped characters, continually re-live the same hellish day over and over again in, '' No Exit. '' For movie lovers, they can reference an entirely different story, but with the same concept, which is found in the movie, " Groundhog Day."
The Health Care Summit Show at Blair House
If you watched this parody of political maneuvering, at its best, you sat through 6 1/2 hours of "theatre of the absurd. " The inherent problem with this debate was that trouble has already erupted between the public and Obama, as the voter has already seen his Health Care product, and they have already endured his Health Care process- and collectively they had said no to all of it. Therefore they wonder, why is Obama putting on this American Charade again ?
Obama is playing this political chess game for these reasons:
1---Obama wants to show the public that Republicans have no answers on Health Care issue and if they do, their ideas are certainly inferior to those of his plans.
2---Obama also wants to depict the Republican Party as the Party of Obstruction- in short- the party of " no. "
3---Obama wants the people to know that the cries from critics that he was not transparent, because he did not keep his promise to transmit all of the Health Care proceedings on C-SPAN, because as some implied, he wanted to carry on secret deals with Democrats in the Senate and the House in order to barter for their votes to pass his Health Care Bill- were untrue. To emphasize this point, he is live on television, showing that he is indeed transparent with this 6 to 7 hour summit on Health Care.
4---Obama wants the voters who have criticized Washington because of gridlock and lack of bi-partisanship between the two parties, to see that he is post-partisan, because he is hosting this event where he has allowed every one to express their ideas regardless of their party affiliation.
5--- Obama and the Democrats want to show that there is very little day-light between them and their opponents, the Republicans, because they wish to illustrate, that they, the Democrats, have already accommodated the Republicans by including their amendments and ideas in their bills, and that they are receptive at this summit, to accept any original idea they might have and include it as an amendment in the final Health Care bill. Still, Obama has implied through the nebulous manner in which he speaks, for Republicans not to take his statement as definitive.
Obama also wants to show the public that Republicans agree with the Democrats on many of the substantial or core issues, such as providing those with pre-existing conditions some form of Health Care help, so frightened Democratic Moderates will feel a lot easier in voting for Obama's Health Care Bill, when many of them represent red states with conservative views.
6---Obama needed an "excuse event " after the Massachusetts debacle to bring the Health Care Bill issue back and out of the closet- so along with insurance companies speaking recently about rate increases; and, the last set of talks with Republicans, as well as this summit, Obama felt comfortable enough to pull the Health Care Bill out into the daylight again.
7---Obama needed to perform the cheer-leader function of working up the fractious elements of his own party, to come together and resolve their differences and pass this bill, most likely through reconciliation. Should that fail, a bare bones minuscule bill that will just squeak by, may be created at the last minute, so Democrats have at least something on the books before the November elections.In regard to the first three points which Obama had on his "to do summit list, " 1--- the Republicans have no ideas; 2--- they are obstructionists; 3--- that Obama is transparent and pursued no secret deals, Obama has fared terribly on these points.
For example, in regard to point 3- the public is already fed up with Congressional secret deals Obama made with Senators in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida. Now all of the senators and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska have these same breaks like Nelson had originally. Initially, his state did not have to pay Medicaid for perpetuity. Also, now all parties have deals like the unions, who would not have to pay tax on their Cadillac Plans until 2018. Presently, everybody else with a Cadillac plan are also excluded from paying taxes until 2018.
But these two corrections which were made by Obama, in order to remove the 2 most egregious secret deals that haunted his party with public outrage, came with a big cost. The elimination of these two deals substantially increases the over-all cost of Obama's final Health Care Bill, both in the first decade, as well as, over the second decade where the Health Care cost curve will now go up, instead of down.
Surprisingly all secret deals were not taken off the table when the public, especially Independents, was even more upset by the process of the Health Care Bill than the product. Obama has kept the Louisiana deal he made with the Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, and the deal he made with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who in a secret deal, unlike all of the rest of the 49 states, gets to keep his state's Medicare Advantage. This last point was brought up by John Mc Cain, who when he challenged the president on this point, about the unsavory special deals the president had made with several Democratic Senators, was answered sharply by Obama and summarily dismissed.
Earlier, Senator Mc Cain and Obama both got into a sharp exchange over the special deal Obama made with '' big Pharma " to prevent Health Care consumers from buying their drugs from Canada, because of the the president's involvement in negotiating with the drug companies to lower drug costs 10% over 10 years in trade- for this Canadian provision . Obama testily responded that Mc Cain was bringing up the past and this fact was not constructive to solving the problem at hand. During the remainder of Senator Mc Cain's statement, a visibly angry Obama dismissed him by not looking at Mc Cain as he spoke, instead turning the pages of the document before him.
When we examine point 1- that the Republicans had no new ideas or 2- that they were obstructionists Obama lost credibility- because Republicans were knowledgeable and well prepared. Instead Republicans were very impressive. For example, on the Republican side the first speaker was Republican Lamar Alexander who stated that premiums would go up in the Obama Health Care Plan for individuals who had insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Also outstanding was Representative Paul Ryan, who very impressively demonstrated that the Senate Health Care Bill would add to the deficit, and would not lower the cost curve in the short term as well as in the long term. Representative Eric Cantor, the Minority Whip, also was up to speed, with his huge copy of the Health Care Bill sitting there on the table before him as a visual.
Republicans who were doctors such as Senators Coburn and Barrasso also appeared sensitive to the problems of ordinary Americans. They came up with creative solutions to reduce fraud, such as sending in an under-cover patient to see if there was false billing by their physician, and suggested that 1/3 of Medicare is riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse, and for Congress to focus on ridding Medicare of this fraud.
Republicans suggested competition across state lines, tort reform, and Health Care Pools to service patients who had pre-existing conditions-giving rise to those watching them to see that Republicans do have ideas, many of them good. Many ideas were coming from the Republicans who were also doctors. These Republicans were not seen in the image that they were cast in by Obama- as the party of no, or that they were uninformed, or that they had no ideas. In the end- if Obama wanted to show that Republicans had no ideas, no plan, were the party of no, or that they were obstructionists, he failed miserably.
In regard to point 4- where Obama wanted to demonstrate that he was post partisan he gained points by hosting this event , as well as, when he said that some points made by the Republicans such as pools for those who had pre-existing conditions, was a good idea. However, he referred to them as " interesting " and did not definitively promise that they would be in the final bill.
In contrast in point 5, where Obama said that Republicans and Democrats were in agreement with each other, and there was little little daylight between them, these statements were echoed by the Democratic Senators as an obvious ploy, because a--- there is a huge gap between both parties as Republicans want a start-over fresh, incremental, free- market approach, and Democrats instead want a keep the old Senate Health Care Bill intact, craft a comprehensive bill with a government style approach.
Agreements rested on one fact alone- that they both recognized the same problems, but not on the fact, that they accepted the same solutions. Obama wanted to set the stage that both parties were on the same page, by not pointing out this distinction, and thereby confusing voters.Obama accomplished this, by after leaving the summit, stating there is little daylight between both parties on this issue, in effect giving voters permission to falsely believe that this bill was a bi-partisan effort.
In regard to point 6- Obama created an artificial situation to resurrect Health Care, after he had buried it, following the Massachusetts victory. He did this to allow the public anger against the bill to cool down. These pseudo bi-partisan talks with Republicans, initiated after some insurance companies suggested they would raise their rates, were done purely for show. Obama's purpose was to illustrate that he, Obama, was making an effort to bring Republicans on board- but they rejected his offer, so therefore, he would have to go on alone and use the tool of reconciliation, and forgo future efforts to craft a bi-partisan deal.
Commenting on the last point- point 7- Obama, besides directing his speech's purpose towards the public to warm them up to his old Health Care Bill, he also directed this speech to Blue-Dog and Moderate Democrats to fire them up and to straighten their spines. Obama accomplished this objective by using this device, they could point to an amendment or two from the Republicans that Obama culled from the summit. Perhaps the mal-practice issue brought up by the Republican, Senator Dr. Tom Coburn, could be used by Obama as an amendment in his final bill, as a form of tokenism. Obama could then tell these skittish Moderate Democrats that they could tell their people back home, that this bill was bi-partisan, even if a single Republican never voted for it.
Obama has underestimated the American people, no one is buying this '' dog food, " Obama's stale resurrected Health Care Bill. It is the product, and it is the process that are disgusting them- and no amount of spiel, no amount of hard sell, or no 7 hour infomercial will move them to embrace this turkey. They have seen this summit for what it was- theatre of the absurd- and bad theatre at that.
The main character, Obama, was testy, pompous, and dismissive to the supporting cast. The plot was predictable- Obama was making a final pseudo effort to feign bi- partisanship to pass this bill, when he was probably initiating plans, minutes after the summit, to provide the game-plan for Democrats of going alone through reconciliation. Worst of all, this was his game- plan before he ever entered the summit. Disgusted, most Americans walked out during the first act, and are currently demanding a refund.
Most likely, Obama spoke to two audiences. If at least one of the audiences were the American people to whom Obama was directing his remarks during this summit -he failed. Americans are not stupid- they can't be manipulated, nor can they be fooled. Obama should take note of the words of another famous Illinois politician, Abraham Lincoln, '' You can fool some of the people, all of the time and all of the people, some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people, all of the time." This country is telling Obama, " We, Americans got your number, we will not be fooled by you again !
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Preview of Why the Stimulus Did More to Stop Job Creation than It Did to Help Promote It / Plus How Obama Designed It to Further his Political Career
This is a preview of the article entitled, " Its First Birthday in 2010 Public Believes the Stimulus is a Sham/ Analysis of How and Why Obama Designed the Stimulus Not to Create Jobs. " This article is in my blog and is located immediately underneath this preview article. It is also a summary of that article which details why the stimulus failed.
The reason that this stimulus failed was not an accident, nor was it because of a fumbling incompetence on the part of this president, but instead it was mostly a product of this president's arrogance- an arrogance reeking of hubris of an intellectual elitist, Obama, who crafted the broad outline of the elements which he wanted in this bill, that would enhance his political power. The attention he gave to jobs in this bill was almost non- existent. Obama gave job creation only lip-service.
These political elements which filled the Stimulus Bill were included because Obama wanted to hold on to political power through re-election and to create a legacy that he was an historic trans-formative president like Reagan. To do this he sacrificed jobs, by refusing to include on a large- scale positive pro- growth elements which are proven job creators, such as money to repair infrastructure- which is a proven job multiplier and to provide aid to small businesses to create jobs, when they produce over 70% of all jobs in the economy.
These 2 pro- growth elements, which if included on that large scale, could have produced millions of real jobs, and not those so called "created jobs " or " zombie jobs," which this president insisted were saved by state governors, to whom he gave money to, which they used to balance their budgets. These supposedly " saved jobs " were claimed to be positions held by teachers, police, and firemen which were in danger of being lost, although there is no way to prove that they were indeed saved.
The money given to the states by Obama had no strings attached to it- strings such as requirements that all or a designated part of the money be specifically used to save the positions of teachers, police, and firemen. Therefore, there was little incentive for these governors who are forced to balance their budget each year, to use all of this stimulus to keep teachers, police, and firemen on board.
On the other hand, the Obama ditched the pro-growth elements of infrastructure and aide to small business owners, except for a minuscule 4% which Obama gave to infrastructure, and the 1/2 % he gave to small business to create jobs, which produces over 70 % of all jobs in this country.
Instead Obama pushed forth his own political elements which were designed to garner himself political power. These consisted of a form of tax relief where some payroll tax was released to workers resulting in extra income of about $1.64, per day for the public, about the price of a cup of cheap coffee. Obama claimed he was giving this tax relief to pacify Republicans. But Republicans stated they did not consider this tax relief, because it was not directed toward small businesses. Therefore, the only benefit to Obama derived from giving this tax breaks to the public was to garner votes for himself. This clarifies why and how the first third of the stimulus was used for Obama's political advantage.
All of the second segment, about a third of the stimulus funds, is the section Obama calls grants and contracts. Most of this money went to Obama's pet projects like Energy and Health Care except 4.5% which when combined went to infrastructure and small business. Again, this third segment was used for Obama's political advantage to create a legacy of being a historic trans-formative president, and it was not used for job creation.
The final third of the stimulus was utilized to provide food stamps and unemployment insurance for the unemployed, and the rest went to governors who were forced to balance their budgets each year. Most of the governor's money went to pay for Medicaid. Perhaps some small amount which was left over, went to "save jobs " of a few government workers.
In 2009, only 109 billion was released from this entitlement fund. So when we add the infrastructure and the small business funds to this amount we see a combined total of 35.42 billion from both of them, provided these moneys were all spent on road projects in 2009. Therefore from this entitlement category, the only category which could have produced jobs, this category eventually placed an estimated 144.42 billion dollars into the economy.
In contrast, the Federal Reserve placed 24 trillion dollars into the economy to save the big banks. Therefore, when you place that number next to 144.42 billion dollars from the stimulus funds entitlement section, which was the only money available in the stimulus to create jobs, you get a better picture of which figure played the major role in repairing the economy. Which number do you really believe raised our Gross National Product or saved any jobs ? In addition, why was only 1/3 of the stimulus funds allocated to creating jobs ? Finally, what significance do you give to the fact that 70 % of all stimulus funds were available only in the 2 election years of 2010 and 2012 ?
If you wish to find out more, refer to the the title of the article in the first paragraph of this article, or scroll down to the article immediately below this one in my blog.
The reason that this stimulus failed was not an accident, nor was it because of a fumbling incompetence on the part of this president, but instead it was mostly a product of this president's arrogance- an arrogance reeking of hubris of an intellectual elitist, Obama, who crafted the broad outline of the elements which he wanted in this bill, that would enhance his political power. The attention he gave to jobs in this bill was almost non- existent. Obama gave job creation only lip-service.
These political elements which filled the Stimulus Bill were included because Obama wanted to hold on to political power through re-election and to create a legacy that he was an historic trans-formative president like Reagan. To do this he sacrificed jobs, by refusing to include on a large- scale positive pro- growth elements which are proven job creators, such as money to repair infrastructure- which is a proven job multiplier and to provide aid to small businesses to create jobs, when they produce over 70% of all jobs in the economy.
These 2 pro- growth elements, which if included on that large scale, could have produced millions of real jobs, and not those so called "created jobs " or " zombie jobs," which this president insisted were saved by state governors, to whom he gave money to, which they used to balance their budgets. These supposedly " saved jobs " were claimed to be positions held by teachers, police, and firemen which were in danger of being lost, although there is no way to prove that they were indeed saved.
The money given to the states by Obama had no strings attached to it- strings such as requirements that all or a designated part of the money be specifically used to save the positions of teachers, police, and firemen. Therefore, there was little incentive for these governors who are forced to balance their budget each year, to use all of this stimulus to keep teachers, police, and firemen on board.
On the other hand, the Obama ditched the pro-growth elements of infrastructure and aide to small business owners, except for a minuscule 4% which Obama gave to infrastructure, and the 1/2 % he gave to small business to create jobs, which produces over 70 % of all jobs in this country.
Instead Obama pushed forth his own political elements which were designed to garner himself political power. These consisted of a form of tax relief where some payroll tax was released to workers resulting in extra income of about $1.64, per day for the public, about the price of a cup of cheap coffee. Obama claimed he was giving this tax relief to pacify Republicans. But Republicans stated they did not consider this tax relief, because it was not directed toward small businesses. Therefore, the only benefit to Obama derived from giving this tax breaks to the public was to garner votes for himself. This clarifies why and how the first third of the stimulus was used for Obama's political advantage.
All of the second segment, about a third of the stimulus funds, is the section Obama calls grants and contracts. Most of this money went to Obama's pet projects like Energy and Health Care except 4.5% which when combined went to infrastructure and small business. Again, this third segment was used for Obama's political advantage to create a legacy of being a historic trans-formative president, and it was not used for job creation.
The final third of the stimulus was utilized to provide food stamps and unemployment insurance for the unemployed, and the rest went to governors who were forced to balance their budgets each year. Most of the governor's money went to pay for Medicaid. Perhaps some small amount which was left over, went to "save jobs " of a few government workers.
In 2009, only 109 billion was released from this entitlement fund. So when we add the infrastructure and the small business funds to this amount we see a combined total of 35.42 billion from both of them, provided these moneys were all spent on road projects in 2009. Therefore from this entitlement category, the only category which could have produced jobs, this category eventually placed an estimated 144.42 billion dollars into the economy.
In contrast, the Federal Reserve placed 24 trillion dollars into the economy to save the big banks. Therefore, when you place that number next to 144.42 billion dollars from the stimulus funds entitlement section, which was the only money available in the stimulus to create jobs, you get a better picture of which figure played the major role in repairing the economy. Which number do you really believe raised our Gross National Product or saved any jobs ? In addition, why was only 1/3 of the stimulus funds allocated to creating jobs ? Finally, what significance do you give to the fact that 70 % of all stimulus funds were available only in the 2 election years of 2010 and 2012 ?
If you wish to find out more, refer to the the title of the article in the first paragraph of this article, or scroll down to the article immediately below this one in my blog.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On Its First Birthday in 2010 Public Believes that Stimulus is a Sham/ Analysis of How & Why Obama Designed the Stimulus to Not Create Jobs
On February 17, 2009 the stimulus was passed among great fanfare among Democrats as the vehicle that would bring jobs back to America. In addition, it would build a dike to hold back the bleeding of jobs, or the unemployment rate, which Obama stated would stop at 8%. This last week the president celebrated, along with Democrats in his administration, the success of that 787 billion dollar stimulus, which they claimed fulfilled its mandate to create jobs. After adding interest to the original dollar amount of the stimulus, the total cost of this stimulus is 1.1 trillion dollars the source of which was, borrowed money which will add to the deficit. But that is not the chief concern of the voter.
The most important question which Americans want to know concerning this stimulus is, was it worth it ? Did the 787 billion dollar stimulus really work ? The real answer is no. Below are several of the reasons which prove this assertion that the stimulus was a sham by its very design, while it was deliberately sold to Americans as a powerful job creator. These reasons that are supported by facts and numbers that prove this ineffective stimulus was indeed a deliberately designed sham, whose purpose was not meaningful large-scale job creation are these :
1---Most Americans already know they have seen very few of those shovel ready projects in the streets and rural areas of their states which this president promised the stimulus would deliver. Yet this president is stating that this stimulus has produced 2 million jobs. But Americans are asking just where are they ?
This president and Larry Summers spent the first few months after the February 17, 2009 passage of this stimulus bill touting the fact that this stimulus would produce 3 million jobs. They began using from the very beginning, this very unusual language of, " these jobs would be created or saved. '' Plus, they insisted that this stimulus was designed to be in the words of the administration itself, " targeted, timely, and temporary. " They also predicted that the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8%. All of these assertions were proven false. If this project had a mission statement, or if there was a "white paper " on the stimulus, then this was it. Therefore, according to the parameters or bench marks of the administration itself- this stimulus failed.
2---But, in addition, any person with the slightest amount of logic will notice the flaw in the design of the stimulus itself, a flaw that was put into it directly by this president. Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize winning economist who has supported Obama has claimed the stimulus was too small and he was right- 787 billion is too small- if it were the only flaw which was the problem.
Instead, deliberate alterations to this bill by the Obama administration made it much smaller than the 787 billion dollar stimulus number would imply- thus making it virtually impossible that it would "create jobs," and even doubtful that it could " save jobs " where it could be proven with certainty that they were saved, or some physical proof could be presented that " jobs were saved. '' This lack of certainty over the " production of created or saved jobs " existed because the administration used economic models, for instance, these models had administration officials stating that it created or saved 1.4 million to 2.4 million a few weeks ago. Just how reliable is a model that has a 1 million point range, especially when you are using numbers with a the range being between 1.4 million to 2.4 million ?
3--- The primary problem with the stimulus is that the real stimulus is much less than 787 billion- at least the part that is designed to "create jobs." Less than 1% of the 787 billion was allocated toward small business creation, when small business creates over 70% of all private sector jobs in the economy.
4--Plus only 4% of the entire 787 billion is allocated to replace or repair our crumbling infrastructure, when the academy of engineers have stated we need at least 2 trillion dollars of repair which is urgently needed on our aging bridges, roads, high-ways and sewer systems among others. If we do not repair these safety hazards now, we will still have to repair them later, as this task is not a matter of we will or we will not, but rather it has to be done sooner or later.
Plus infrastructure is a multiple job creator which means that for every dollar the government puts into infrastructure, the private sector will put in several additional dollars. For example, if the public sector decides to build a bridge or highway, for every dollar the government puts into the project, the private sector will put in several dollars for that one dollar provided by the government, for the production of heavy construction equipment, steel, and asphalt, etc.
5---Another fact that suggests that the stimulus failed was- because it was deliberately not designed as a job creator. For instance, although infrastructure has this effect of being a job multiplier, and the construction industry had been exceptionally hit by this recession, Obama has not chosen to fund it- beyond giving it a pittance of 4%. Instead he has chosen to allocate about 288 billion dollars to non- business tax relief, which is a much larger number than the first third of the stimulus that Obama has spoken about.
Obama has stated that the first third of the fund was to be allocated toward taxes for the general public. This third of the stimulus funds is not 33 1/3 % but is about 36.5 % of the total stimulus of 787 billion dollars. Most of this first third of the stimulus is in a form which will not benefit business people but will give the tax-payer back through their pay stubs about$ 11.48 a week or $ 1.64 per day, which is about the price of a cup of regular coffee in a cheap diner.
Remember, this tax benefit of $ 600 per individual a year made so little impression on the tax-payer that many thought their taxes were increased, since it did not come in a form of a single government check. This practice of taking out $1.64 per day out of your payroll tax was adopted, so that the public would put the funds directly into the economy, rather then save the $ 600 or pay off their credit card debt with it.
Obama claimed devoting the first third of the stimulus was done to placate Republicans, but this group contended it was not tax relief for business, and instead of pleasing them it angered them. This taxpayer rebate was most likely given by Obama to gain favor with the voter. It had very little effect on the economy especially in the area of job creation, according to the analyses of several economists.
6---The second third of the total stimulus money was labeled as entitlement spending and was allocated 224 billion dollars to be used towards aid for states and individuals. This gave the administration an out when critics derided it, by calling it the job bill which did not provide any jobs.
Now the administration has recently re-labeled the stimulus, but not as a job's bill, but as a ''rescue bill, " thereby illustrating this administration changing their tune as they go along. This same technique, is being used in the Health Care Bill, where formerly Obama was selling it as a product which provided insurance for 30 million more people. Today, he is promoting himself, as the savior of the middle class when Obama and his administration claim that they are saving the public from large insurance company increases.
A--- In regard to the entitlement third of the stimulus, some part of this entitlement money went for aide to individuals in the form of food stamps and unemployment insurance and also for an extension of Cobra, where the government paid up to 60% of Cobra Health Insurance until the end of 2009. Tragically, unemployment insurance sponsored by the federal government ends on February 28, 2010- in less than 1 week, thereby leaving these unemployed workers hanging out to dry, while all Obama has on his mind is passing his signature legislative piece, Health Care.
B---Also relating to this second third of the stimulus, the entitlement label also refers back to the governors of states who have entitlement programs such as Medicaid. These governors had enormous demands placed on their state coffers, especially since they are required to balance their budgets each year. This strained budget was most likely caused by people filling up Medicaid rolls because of the recession.
Besides sharing this allotment of 224 billion dollars with individuals who were aided with Cobra and unemployment insurance, these governors were also allocated funds from the entitlement, 1/3 of the stimulus, in order to use it to service the extra strain on their budgets caused by a ballooning Medicaid enrollment. In addition, these Governors probably spent these stimulus funds in the second third of the stimulus in other areas of their budget, unrelated to either saving or creating jobs, because they were required to balance their state's budget each year.
In a few cases some money was surely used to save jobs, after using some for Medicaid and other basic needs of the states were met. There was probably very little new hiring or job creation done at the state level- indeed most states probably had hiring freezes. Therefore, any jobs which were given credit as being produced had to be '' saved jobs. '' Americans can wonder even about this saved category -how many of these saved jobs were administrative or clerical jobs- and how many were really police, fire-fighters and teachers whose jobs were saved ? We may never know.
7---The final third of the stimulus was allocated to contracts and grants, about 275 billion dollars worth. Although it would have been prudent- if Obama needed this money for reconstruction purposes in the future, such as computerizing of the Health Care system or developing broad- band service in rural areas, or even developing high speed rail service, if he would have placed these future luxuries in a separate bill, other than the stimulus. Instead Obama used this third section of the stimulus, labeled contracts and grants, to raid the stimulus bill itself.
Most of the 275 billion dollars in the third segment of the stimulus serviced these Obama's pet projects in Health Care and Energy. Again, only a fractional part of 1 % of this allotment went to aid small business and only 3% went to infrastructure development- these last two are real job creators.
But this stimulus was not only divided by the 3 subject categories as I have listed which were 1---taxes; 2--- entitlements; and 3-- grants and contracts, where only 4.5% actually went to direct job creation via infrastructure and help to small business. In category 2, labeled entitlements, there were some jobs saved for police and teachers after money was first siphoned off for Medicaid, funding other necessary areas in state offices by the governors, and also after some administrative and clerical jobs were probably saved in those state offices.
8---Besides the stimulus being divided into thirds by category name such as taxes, this stimulus was also divided into time categories. For example, about 25% of the total funds were distributed in 2009 the year of greatest recession turmoil; about 50% were to be distributed in 2010, the year of politically critical congressional elections, and the last 25% was to be distributed or spent mainly in 2011, the politically sensitive year of Obama running for re-election, although part of the last 25% of the stimulus will be dribbling out until 2019. This division shows again that the stimulus was not designed to produce jobs, but was designed purposely to increase political advantage for Obama since 75% of it was designed not to be released in the worst recession year. but in the two years that had elections 2010- and 2012.
In conclusion, in the year 2009 according to the government's own web site, called recovery.gov- the total of all funds allocated were 199 billion for that year of 2009, and funds received for that year received by vendors for a job completed, etc. were 57 billion. The allocated funds were about 2 billion dollars over the 25% mark, which was allocated for the first and worst year of the recession. The more interesting number is the the funds received were only 57 billion suggesting that " received " means that a job or contract was completed or finished, which means the other projects have money allocated to them, but they have not been completed, or their funds have not been distributed.
Plus, while 288 billion overall was allocated for taxes in the first third of the stimulus- in 2009 & the 2 months of 2010- only 92.8 billion was out or spent. In the second third of the stimulus, labeled entitlements overall 224 billion was allocated, while in 2009 & 2 months of 2010 - just 109 billion dollars was out or spent. Plus, while 275 billion was allocated overall for the third part of the stimulus funds, labeled contracts- in 2009 & 2 months into 2010- only about 76.9 billion was out or spent.
The total amount of moneys out as of February 21, 2010 is therefore about 278.7 billion dollars out of the total stimulus fund of 787 billion dollars. Which means that out of 787 billion dollars of the stimulus money fund there still remains 508.3 billion dollars of stimulus money which has not been spent.
Christina Romer, Obama's chief economic advisor, has stated publicly that the stimulus was going to do all of what it was intended to do in the third and fourth quarter in 2009, and that it would have little effect on the economy in 2010. So the big question is if this stimulus was well designed for job creation and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Plus Christina Romer said that the stimulus would do the best it could do in these 2 areas in the last two quarters of 2009, than why do we still have over 500 billion still sitting there, when according to what Romer said, it should have been spent in 2009- that is if that money were to do any good ? Could it be that a great deal of the remaining stimulus was deliberately allocated to Obama's pet projects of Energy and Health Care, which would not create or save jobs in this time frame- and possibly very little in the future years ?
The most important question which Americans want to know concerning this stimulus is, was it worth it ? Did the 787 billion dollar stimulus really work ? The real answer is no. Below are several of the reasons which prove this assertion that the stimulus was a sham by its very design, while it was deliberately sold to Americans as a powerful job creator. These reasons that are supported by facts and numbers that prove this ineffective stimulus was indeed a deliberately designed sham, whose purpose was not meaningful large-scale job creation are these :
1---Most Americans already know they have seen very few of those shovel ready projects in the streets and rural areas of their states which this president promised the stimulus would deliver. Yet this president is stating that this stimulus has produced 2 million jobs. But Americans are asking just where are they ?
This president and Larry Summers spent the first few months after the February 17, 2009 passage of this stimulus bill touting the fact that this stimulus would produce 3 million jobs. They began using from the very beginning, this very unusual language of, " these jobs would be created or saved. '' Plus, they insisted that this stimulus was designed to be in the words of the administration itself, " targeted, timely, and temporary. " They also predicted that the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8%. All of these assertions were proven false. If this project had a mission statement, or if there was a "white paper " on the stimulus, then this was it. Therefore, according to the parameters or bench marks of the administration itself- this stimulus failed.
2---But, in addition, any person with the slightest amount of logic will notice the flaw in the design of the stimulus itself, a flaw that was put into it directly by this president. Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize winning economist who has supported Obama has claimed the stimulus was too small and he was right- 787 billion is too small- if it were the only flaw which was the problem.
Instead, deliberate alterations to this bill by the Obama administration made it much smaller than the 787 billion dollar stimulus number would imply- thus making it virtually impossible that it would "create jobs," and even doubtful that it could " save jobs " where it could be proven with certainty that they were saved, or some physical proof could be presented that " jobs were saved. '' This lack of certainty over the " production of created or saved jobs " existed because the administration used economic models, for instance, these models had administration officials stating that it created or saved 1.4 million to 2.4 million a few weeks ago. Just how reliable is a model that has a 1 million point range, especially when you are using numbers with a the range being between 1.4 million to 2.4 million ?
3--- The primary problem with the stimulus is that the real stimulus is much less than 787 billion- at least the part that is designed to "create jobs." Less than 1% of the 787 billion was allocated toward small business creation, when small business creates over 70% of all private sector jobs in the economy.
4--Plus only 4% of the entire 787 billion is allocated to replace or repair our crumbling infrastructure, when the academy of engineers have stated we need at least 2 trillion dollars of repair which is urgently needed on our aging bridges, roads, high-ways and sewer systems among others. If we do not repair these safety hazards now, we will still have to repair them later, as this task is not a matter of we will or we will not, but rather it has to be done sooner or later.
Plus infrastructure is a multiple job creator which means that for every dollar the government puts into infrastructure, the private sector will put in several additional dollars. For example, if the public sector decides to build a bridge or highway, for every dollar the government puts into the project, the private sector will put in several dollars for that one dollar provided by the government, for the production of heavy construction equipment, steel, and asphalt, etc.
5---Another fact that suggests that the stimulus failed was- because it was deliberately not designed as a job creator. For instance, although infrastructure has this effect of being a job multiplier, and the construction industry had been exceptionally hit by this recession, Obama has not chosen to fund it- beyond giving it a pittance of 4%. Instead he has chosen to allocate about 288 billion dollars to non- business tax relief, which is a much larger number than the first third of the stimulus that Obama has spoken about.
Obama has stated that the first third of the fund was to be allocated toward taxes for the general public. This third of the stimulus funds is not 33 1/3 % but is about 36.5 % of the total stimulus of 787 billion dollars. Most of this first third of the stimulus is in a form which will not benefit business people but will give the tax-payer back through their pay stubs about$ 11.48 a week or $ 1.64 per day, which is about the price of a cup of regular coffee in a cheap diner.
Remember, this tax benefit of $ 600 per individual a year made so little impression on the tax-payer that many thought their taxes were increased, since it did not come in a form of a single government check. This practice of taking out $1.64 per day out of your payroll tax was adopted, so that the public would put the funds directly into the economy, rather then save the $ 600 or pay off their credit card debt with it.
Obama claimed devoting the first third of the stimulus was done to placate Republicans, but this group contended it was not tax relief for business, and instead of pleasing them it angered them. This taxpayer rebate was most likely given by Obama to gain favor with the voter. It had very little effect on the economy especially in the area of job creation, according to the analyses of several economists.
6---The second third of the total stimulus money was labeled as entitlement spending and was allocated 224 billion dollars to be used towards aid for states and individuals. This gave the administration an out when critics derided it, by calling it the job bill which did not provide any jobs.
Now the administration has recently re-labeled the stimulus, but not as a job's bill, but as a ''rescue bill, " thereby illustrating this administration changing their tune as they go along. This same technique, is being used in the Health Care Bill, where formerly Obama was selling it as a product which provided insurance for 30 million more people. Today, he is promoting himself, as the savior of the middle class when Obama and his administration claim that they are saving the public from large insurance company increases.
A--- In regard to the entitlement third of the stimulus, some part of this entitlement money went for aide to individuals in the form of food stamps and unemployment insurance and also for an extension of Cobra, where the government paid up to 60% of Cobra Health Insurance until the end of 2009. Tragically, unemployment insurance sponsored by the federal government ends on February 28, 2010- in less than 1 week, thereby leaving these unemployed workers hanging out to dry, while all Obama has on his mind is passing his signature legislative piece, Health Care.
B---Also relating to this second third of the stimulus, the entitlement label also refers back to the governors of states who have entitlement programs such as Medicaid. These governors had enormous demands placed on their state coffers, especially since they are required to balance their budgets each year. This strained budget was most likely caused by people filling up Medicaid rolls because of the recession.
Besides sharing this allotment of 224 billion dollars with individuals who were aided with Cobra and unemployment insurance, these governors were also allocated funds from the entitlement, 1/3 of the stimulus, in order to use it to service the extra strain on their budgets caused by a ballooning Medicaid enrollment. In addition, these Governors probably spent these stimulus funds in the second third of the stimulus in other areas of their budget, unrelated to either saving or creating jobs, because they were required to balance their state's budget each year.
In a few cases some money was surely used to save jobs, after using some for Medicaid and other basic needs of the states were met. There was probably very little new hiring or job creation done at the state level- indeed most states probably had hiring freezes. Therefore, any jobs which were given credit as being produced had to be '' saved jobs. '' Americans can wonder even about this saved category -how many of these saved jobs were administrative or clerical jobs- and how many were really police, fire-fighters and teachers whose jobs were saved ? We may never know.
7---The final third of the stimulus was allocated to contracts and grants, about 275 billion dollars worth. Although it would have been prudent- if Obama needed this money for reconstruction purposes in the future, such as computerizing of the Health Care system or developing broad- band service in rural areas, or even developing high speed rail service, if he would have placed these future luxuries in a separate bill, other than the stimulus. Instead Obama used this third section of the stimulus, labeled contracts and grants, to raid the stimulus bill itself.
Most of the 275 billion dollars in the third segment of the stimulus serviced these Obama's pet projects in Health Care and Energy. Again, only a fractional part of 1 % of this allotment went to aid small business and only 3% went to infrastructure development- these last two are real job creators.
But this stimulus was not only divided by the 3 subject categories as I have listed which were 1---taxes; 2--- entitlements; and 3-- grants and contracts, where only 4.5% actually went to direct job creation via infrastructure and help to small business. In category 2, labeled entitlements, there were some jobs saved for police and teachers after money was first siphoned off for Medicaid, funding other necessary areas in state offices by the governors, and also after some administrative and clerical jobs were probably saved in those state offices.
8---Besides the stimulus being divided into thirds by category name such as taxes, this stimulus was also divided into time categories. For example, about 25% of the total funds were distributed in 2009 the year of greatest recession turmoil; about 50% were to be distributed in 2010, the year of politically critical congressional elections, and the last 25% was to be distributed or spent mainly in 2011, the politically sensitive year of Obama running for re-election, although part of the last 25% of the stimulus will be dribbling out until 2019. This division shows again that the stimulus was not designed to produce jobs, but was designed purposely to increase political advantage for Obama since 75% of it was designed not to be released in the worst recession year. but in the two years that had elections 2010- and 2012.
In conclusion, in the year 2009 according to the government's own web site, called recovery.gov- the total of all funds allocated were 199 billion for that year of 2009, and funds received for that year received by vendors for a job completed, etc. were 57 billion. The allocated funds were about 2 billion dollars over the 25% mark, which was allocated for the first and worst year of the recession. The more interesting number is the the funds received were only 57 billion suggesting that " received " means that a job or contract was completed or finished, which means the other projects have money allocated to them, but they have not been completed, or their funds have not been distributed.
Plus, while 288 billion overall was allocated for taxes in the first third of the stimulus- in 2009 & the 2 months of 2010- only 92.8 billion was out or spent. In the second third of the stimulus, labeled entitlements overall 224 billion was allocated, while in 2009 & 2 months of 2010 - just 109 billion dollars was out or spent. Plus, while 275 billion was allocated overall for the third part of the stimulus funds, labeled contracts- in 2009 & 2 months into 2010- only about 76.9 billion was out or spent.
The total amount of moneys out as of February 21, 2010 is therefore about 278.7 billion dollars out of the total stimulus fund of 787 billion dollars. Which means that out of 787 billion dollars of the stimulus money fund there still remains 508.3 billion dollars of stimulus money which has not been spent.
Christina Romer, Obama's chief economic advisor, has stated publicly that the stimulus was going to do all of what it was intended to do in the third and fourth quarter in 2009, and that it would have little effect on the economy in 2010. So the big question is if this stimulus was well designed for job creation and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Plus Christina Romer said that the stimulus would do the best it could do in these 2 areas in the last two quarters of 2009, than why do we still have over 500 billion still sitting there, when according to what Romer said, it should have been spent in 2009- that is if that money were to do any good ? Could it be that a great deal of the remaining stimulus was deliberately allocated to Obama's pet projects of Energy and Health Care, which would not create or save jobs in this time frame- and possibly very little in the future years ?
In regard to that 278.7 billion which went out of the stimulus fund we can subtract the 92.8 which went out for taxes, as most economists see this category as creating few jobs. In the second subject category of contracts only about 4.5 % went for infrastructure and help to small business, which was about 35.42 billion dollars.
If we even count the entire 109 billion dollars that is out in the entitlement category which will go to employees for food stamps and unemployment insurance and governors to balance their budgets-without any strings attached, perhaps we can postulate that they were angels and placed keeping teachers and police ahead of balancing their budgets.Therefore if we add 0 dollars for the tax category of stimulus funds which were out, and add the 4.5% or 35.42 billion dollars from the contract category that is out, and throw in the entire category of entitlements which Obama calls rescue the total is 144.42 billion dollars.
Now do we really believe the positive growth in G.D.P. [ the Gross National Product ] and the mythical over 2 million jobs was really created by 144.42 billion dollars in the stimulus or was it caused by the 24 trillion which was given to the banks in loans and guarantees on their toxic assets which still remain on the books, and the enormous amount of money in Obama's mortgage initiative, which helps to stabilize the mortgages of Americans who are under water ? So again was it the miserly 144.42 billion that raised the G.D.P. or was it the 24 trillion bonanza ?
The bottom line is if you examine the numbers at the governments own web site we see that only 278.7 billion went out of the stimulus this year and even in the most generous assessment only about 144.42 billion dollars would have any impact on job creation, in the " saved '' category which would have been under the preview of governors after they paid off their Medicaid debt and balanced their budget.
Over 500 billion dollars of the stimulus, which included almost all of taxes category- the first third of the stimulus, and almost all of contracts and loans, the second third of the stimulus, with the exception of 4.5% of the total stimulus fund found in that second category, did not create jobs.
There may have been some few jobs saved in the Entitlement category of the stimulus from the governor's portion of the 787 billion, but after you take away the more than 500 billion which went out for political advantage of this president, in the form of taxes to buy voter's votes, and the contract and grant category that he filled with his pet projects in Health Care and Energy to provide him with the legacy of being a transformative president, you begin to realize that most of the stimulus was "wasted by design " to achieve political advantage for Obama.
Americans cannot over-look that fact that over 500 billion was wasted. Where would we be today if the first two- thirds of the stimulus, if the tax portion and the contract & grant portions were spent on infrastructure instead ? The unemployment number would be much lower. Furthermore - if a second job bill or a second stimulus were needed, the public, buoyed up by the success of the first would encourage their legislators to pass the second. That is not happening now. Failures do not encourage the voters to approve of similar legislation the second time around.
If you analyze the allocation of the stimulus and realize that only about one- third of it, the entitlement section, which although there is no proof that it created or saved jobs, it did at least provide relief to the states to balance their budgets, and individuals to survive until they found jobs, you would be disturbed.
But when you also are cognizant of the fact that the other two- thirds were wasted by design by this administration to provide Obama political advantage by giving voters tax rebates and giving stimulus funds for grants and loans for future reconstructive projects which are Obama's pet projects in Energy and Health Care, to insure that he would be known as a transformative president, you would have been outraged. You would have been outraged that these funds were not used to create jobs. Put that outrage that you feel to work in the voting booth in 2010 and especially in 2012. Show this president how important jobs are to Americans, by taking away his- make this your own personal plan to stimulate the economy-as his exit from the political stage will surely accomplish this- your own mission statement.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Is Senator Bayh, the Canary in the Coal Mine Signaling a Toxic- Poisonous Atmosphere for Democrats in 2010 and 2012
Today on President's Day in a wrenching announcement laced with raw honesty, Senator Bayh appeared on national television, ironically just one day before the deadline for candidates filing papers to run for the primary in Indiana. Full of disillusionment, and bristling with frustration, Bayh told the nation he was resigning because of the lack of bipartisanship in Congress. As this Democratic Senator who is a Fiscal and Social Moderate saw it, Congress was broken, and this senator was leaving before it would swallow his spirit and resolve to help the people.
The big question is what will the fall-out be from this resignation ? Also, what significance will this abrupt resignation have on Obama and the Democrats now and in 2010 and 2012 ? Is this Senator Bayh " the real canary in the coal mine " signifying a poisonous and toxic atmosphere ahead in the Congressional elections in November in 2010, and later the re-election bid of Obama in 2012 ?
On a slow news day, this stunning story caused an initial yawn from cable news. Some covered it with a few sound bites. But analysis was brief and sporadic, with little or no in- depth analysis. Depending on your political leaning, from the right you heard that Bayh was possibly distancing himself from Obama to make a future bid for president in 2012 or later. From the left, as if to mitigate the importance of this resignation, and scrub away any inference that it could reflect back on the political fortunes of Obama, this resignation was treated as insignificant. To the left, it was seen as merely the fruit of one man's frustration, or the lack of any real impact on policy that former governors like Bayh have, when they become Senators. Then there were others that said, " It is what it is." In other words, Senator Evan Bayh was leaving for the reason he gave, petty intractable bi- partisan gridlock.
For those few who believe that the very popular Bayh was in danger of being replaced by a Republican, the facts belie that assertion. Instead this senator was a Moderate who continually fought for a balanced budget, reduction of the deficit, excessive spending and job creation. Plus he was beloved by voters in his state, had a large war chest of funds over 13 million dollars to spend on his campaign, and was 20 points ahead of any opponent and was expected to win. Therefore, although the winds were changing after the Republican victory in Massachusetts, and Bayh would not be handed his victory on a silver platter- he would have to put up a fight, it was apparent that fear of losing the election was not the reason he left.
After the Massachusetts victory by Republicans, some saw this victory itself as, " the canary in the coal mine. " At that time Bayh himself prophetically acted like that " canary in a coal mine. " He warned Democrats that, " this Republican victory was a wake -up call for Democrats, and if this didn't wake them up, then nothing would. '' In addition, Bayh told Democrats that if they didn't take a centrist position they faced catastrophe. Evidently Bayh's words fell on deaf ears. Obama continued pushing his huge Progressive initiatives in Health Care, Energy, Immigration, and Education in his State of the Union Speech and the Democratic Congress and Republicans continued to engage in hand to hand combat in the form of bi-partisan gridlock.
Although Bayh threw slings and arrows at both Democrats and Republicans, his announcement just 24 hours before the Democratic primary filing dead-line, appeared to be a spear at the heart of Democrats. That state's Democratic leaders will have to conference to choose a primary candidate, but only if the a little known Democratic woman candidate, Tamyra D' lppolito, who is a small cafe owner, doesn't get there first. Should she raise the needed number of signatures by noon on February 16, 2010, she will certainly be the de-facto Democratic candidate, thus handing this Senate seat to Republicans as a gift.
It is almost certain that Bayh realized that he was leaving Obama in the lurch by vacating a secure seat, that he would add to the number of Democratic Senator seats which were peeling away from the 60 seat super majority, which became 59 after the Massachusetts. Plus, after Beau Biden announced he would not run for his father's Senate seat in Delaware, and now with Senator Bayh joining Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, all of which are retiring, should Republicans win these seats - the number of Democratic seats in the Senate could drop to 55 Democratic Senators. Plus there are several other Democratic seats in play in 2010 such as the one in Pennsylvania, where the Republican opponent at this time is several points of the Democratic candidate.
Also, with each Democratic Senator or Representative who resigns, the prevailing trend is being established that Democrats feel the wind against them in the up-coming polls in November, 2010. The greatest cut of all is, Bayh knew well ahead of time that he was leaving. Still, he withdrew just 24 hours before the primary. He knew that Democratic candidates had to file their papers to meet the 24 hour deadline, creating quite a problem for Democrats. The fall-out from this bomb shell announcement caused quite a lot of collateral damage. For instance, Charlie Cook has changed the ranking of Indiana from leaning Democratic to now leaning Republican after this announcement by the senator.
A further problem for Democrats which Bayh's withdrawal signified was that Moderate and Centrist Democrats are not finding a welcoming home in the Democratic Party. These Blue- Dog Democrats were accused by their Progressive colleagues in the Democratic Congress of gumming up the Health Care Bill process as well as other legislative issues. Furthermore, these Democratic Centrists have also been castigated in Progressive blogs and by newscasters.
However, it is a catastrophic mistake to ignore how important these Democratic Moderates are to the success of winning seats in both Congressional and Presidential election cycles. Obama brought in several red states when he won the election in 2008, because the Democratic Party brought in Moderate Democratic candidates deliberately chosen to lure red states and their voters.
However, these Moderate Democrats once elected must take a centrist agenda back to those red states voters if they want to be re-elected in the next election. Herein lies the problem for Democrats- the fact that you must water down your Progressive agenda, if you really want more potential voters in your Democratic tent, and more importantly, keep them there, once you have lured them in. There is really no other way for Democrats- they must adjust their agenda to keep the red states they won. The problem is will they sacrifice part of their agenda to keep these red states and their voters ?
Senator Bayh apparently had strongly held reasons for what he was doing, as he did not give Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, any notice that he was resigning, even though he did notify Obama. In his speech Bayh graphically mentioned 2 examples of gridlock. One instance occurred when some Republicans, about 7 of them, who signed onto a bi- partisan commission to reduce the deficit bill, withdrew their support abruptly, along with extremists in both parties- which resulted in only 53 votes being cast in favor of the bill. This bill which was extremely important to Senator Bayh, as deficit reduction was one of his signature issues.
The second example of bi-partisan gridlock which Bayh high- lighted in his short speech, was how the 85 billion bi-partisan jobs bill, which was pulled together by both parties, in the end was hacked down and butchered to just 15 billion dollars by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. This left both parties enraged. Job creation was extremely important to Bayh, since Indiana is in the rust belt and his state is suffering. So although this Senator in effect said, " A pox on both your houses, " he had a special salvo for the Democratic Senate Majotity Leader, when he gave so little notice, that a suitable substitute to take his place in the primary, would be difficult to find.
It is more difficult to forgive those who are supposed to be close to you - in this case Democrats, than those you know would create opposition for you- the Republicans. That is why in " Dante's Inferno " the bottom ring of hell is filled with those who were close to the persons they betrayed. The public has good reason to suspect that this is the way that Senator Bayh felt. There is every evidence that Senator Bayh who issued numerous warnings to both the Democrats and Obama has issued a final warning this time, but not with his voice but with his winged feet. We can only hope that Obama has heard this " canary in the coal mine " one last time- because this canary has chosen to make his final point by flying away.
The big question is what will the fall-out be from this resignation ? Also, what significance will this abrupt resignation have on Obama and the Democrats now and in 2010 and 2012 ? Is this Senator Bayh " the real canary in the coal mine " signifying a poisonous and toxic atmosphere ahead in the Congressional elections in November in 2010, and later the re-election bid of Obama in 2012 ?
On a slow news day, this stunning story caused an initial yawn from cable news. Some covered it with a few sound bites. But analysis was brief and sporadic, with little or no in- depth analysis. Depending on your political leaning, from the right you heard that Bayh was possibly distancing himself from Obama to make a future bid for president in 2012 or later. From the left, as if to mitigate the importance of this resignation, and scrub away any inference that it could reflect back on the political fortunes of Obama, this resignation was treated as insignificant. To the left, it was seen as merely the fruit of one man's frustration, or the lack of any real impact on policy that former governors like Bayh have, when they become Senators. Then there were others that said, " It is what it is." In other words, Senator Evan Bayh was leaving for the reason he gave, petty intractable bi- partisan gridlock.
For those few who believe that the very popular Bayh was in danger of being replaced by a Republican, the facts belie that assertion. Instead this senator was a Moderate who continually fought for a balanced budget, reduction of the deficit, excessive spending and job creation. Plus he was beloved by voters in his state, had a large war chest of funds over 13 million dollars to spend on his campaign, and was 20 points ahead of any opponent and was expected to win. Therefore, although the winds were changing after the Republican victory in Massachusetts, and Bayh would not be handed his victory on a silver platter- he would have to put up a fight, it was apparent that fear of losing the election was not the reason he left.
After the Massachusetts victory by Republicans, some saw this victory itself as, " the canary in the coal mine. " At that time Bayh himself prophetically acted like that " canary in a coal mine. " He warned Democrats that, " this Republican victory was a wake -up call for Democrats, and if this didn't wake them up, then nothing would. '' In addition, Bayh told Democrats that if they didn't take a centrist position they faced catastrophe. Evidently Bayh's words fell on deaf ears. Obama continued pushing his huge Progressive initiatives in Health Care, Energy, Immigration, and Education in his State of the Union Speech and the Democratic Congress and Republicans continued to engage in hand to hand combat in the form of bi-partisan gridlock.
Although Bayh threw slings and arrows at both Democrats and Republicans, his announcement just 24 hours before the Democratic primary filing dead-line, appeared to be a spear at the heart of Democrats. That state's Democratic leaders will have to conference to choose a primary candidate, but only if the a little known Democratic woman candidate, Tamyra D' lppolito, who is a small cafe owner, doesn't get there first. Should she raise the needed number of signatures by noon on February 16, 2010, she will certainly be the de-facto Democratic candidate, thus handing this Senate seat to Republicans as a gift.
It is almost certain that Bayh realized that he was leaving Obama in the lurch by vacating a secure seat, that he would add to the number of Democratic Senator seats which were peeling away from the 60 seat super majority, which became 59 after the Massachusetts. Plus, after Beau Biden announced he would not run for his father's Senate seat in Delaware, and now with Senator Bayh joining Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, all of which are retiring, should Republicans win these seats - the number of Democratic seats in the Senate could drop to 55 Democratic Senators. Plus there are several other Democratic seats in play in 2010 such as the one in Pennsylvania, where the Republican opponent at this time is several points of the Democratic candidate.
Also, with each Democratic Senator or Representative who resigns, the prevailing trend is being established that Democrats feel the wind against them in the up-coming polls in November, 2010. The greatest cut of all is, Bayh knew well ahead of time that he was leaving. Still, he withdrew just 24 hours before the primary. He knew that Democratic candidates had to file their papers to meet the 24 hour deadline, creating quite a problem for Democrats. The fall-out from this bomb shell announcement caused quite a lot of collateral damage. For instance, Charlie Cook has changed the ranking of Indiana from leaning Democratic to now leaning Republican after this announcement by the senator.
A further problem for Democrats which Bayh's withdrawal signified was that Moderate and Centrist Democrats are not finding a welcoming home in the Democratic Party. These Blue- Dog Democrats were accused by their Progressive colleagues in the Democratic Congress of gumming up the Health Care Bill process as well as other legislative issues. Furthermore, these Democratic Centrists have also been castigated in Progressive blogs and by newscasters.
However, it is a catastrophic mistake to ignore how important these Democratic Moderates are to the success of winning seats in both Congressional and Presidential election cycles. Obama brought in several red states when he won the election in 2008, because the Democratic Party brought in Moderate Democratic candidates deliberately chosen to lure red states and their voters.
However, these Moderate Democrats once elected must take a centrist agenda back to those red states voters if they want to be re-elected in the next election. Herein lies the problem for Democrats- the fact that you must water down your Progressive agenda, if you really want more potential voters in your Democratic tent, and more importantly, keep them there, once you have lured them in. There is really no other way for Democrats- they must adjust their agenda to keep the red states they won. The problem is will they sacrifice part of their agenda to keep these red states and their voters ?
Senator Bayh apparently had strongly held reasons for what he was doing, as he did not give Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, any notice that he was resigning, even though he did notify Obama. In his speech Bayh graphically mentioned 2 examples of gridlock. One instance occurred when some Republicans, about 7 of them, who signed onto a bi- partisan commission to reduce the deficit bill, withdrew their support abruptly, along with extremists in both parties- which resulted in only 53 votes being cast in favor of the bill. This bill which was extremely important to Senator Bayh, as deficit reduction was one of his signature issues.
The second example of bi-partisan gridlock which Bayh high- lighted in his short speech, was how the 85 billion bi-partisan jobs bill, which was pulled together by both parties, in the end was hacked down and butchered to just 15 billion dollars by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. This left both parties enraged. Job creation was extremely important to Bayh, since Indiana is in the rust belt and his state is suffering. So although this Senator in effect said, " A pox on both your houses, " he had a special salvo for the Democratic Senate Majotity Leader, when he gave so little notice, that a suitable substitute to take his place in the primary, would be difficult to find.
It is more difficult to forgive those who are supposed to be close to you - in this case Democrats, than those you know would create opposition for you- the Republicans. That is why in " Dante's Inferno " the bottom ring of hell is filled with those who were close to the persons they betrayed. The public has good reason to suspect that this is the way that Senator Bayh felt. There is every evidence that Senator Bayh who issued numerous warnings to both the Democrats and Obama has issued a final warning this time, but not with his voice but with his winged feet. We can only hope that Obama has heard this " canary in the coal mine " one last time- because this canary has chosen to make his final point by flying away.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Analysis of Which Obama Flaw Will Cause a Major Loss of Seats in Congress in 2010 & Failure to Win the Presidency in 2012
When President Obama was first elected, what serious observer of politics would have predicted that he would not serve 2 terms as president ? But in regard to that same issue, what would that observer predict now ? Today, many would say with a strong degree of confidence, that President Obama will lose many seats in Congress, possibly even the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Also, he will suffer significant losses of additional Democratic Senate seats in that November, 2010 election. Obama will run for re- election in 2012, but again he will lose. Consequentially, Obama's legacy will be recorded in history books with this assessment: that Obama was only a one term president; ironically, whose political desire for legacy and the label of being a trans-formative president, cost him everything, from that historic legacy that he frenetically pursued, to the honor of being a Democratic president who held two terms.
So what was the fatal flaw that will cause Obama's downfall, especially when this rosy picture was what the average voter saw: a man with a glowing and disarming personality; the charismatic candidate with the ability to give an eloquent speech flawlessly at the drop of a dime; the consummate politician who held the abject adoration of a plurality of voters, and had a Midas touch of winning almost every campaign he ever entered; and most of all, a Teflon exterior impervious to any criticism, no matter how serious it seemed at the time, that was leveled at him by the public or the press ? Again, what will do him in ? What is doing him in right now- and what is steadily moving him to that place where he will finally leave the American political stage in 2012 ?
As an answer to this question, we can point to Obama's dramatic loss in the polls from the high point, when he was first elected with polls at 68%, to his present dramatic drop with polls in the mid - forties. Additionally, we can also reference the fact that Independents have left him in droves. We can list the special elections and races that have prophetically, recently swung to Republicans- signaling what is to be his fate in the future. The most telling of those races were: New Jersey, Virginia, and most disturbingly the seat that Edward Kennedy once held, and which Democrats held in Massachusetts for over 60 years. These are however only symptoms; and not the root cause of the Obama decline, much like a high fever can be symptomatic of an infection, when it is the infection itself, which is the true cause of the illness.
There will be others who say, that Obama has an insular cadre of advisers, who are his political staff as well as his original campaign advisers. They propelled him into the presidency. Obama detractors imply that this cadre of political friends caused him to make poor decisions. Among those blamed were: David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe, and Robert Gibbs, most of which were very close to Obama in his Chicago days, with the exception of Gibbs who was from the South. Obama critics claim that they formed a myopic lens through which all Obama's decisions are scanned, directly before he makes his final decision, even though a different group of independent outsiders might have originally contributed to the initial discussion.
Others lay blame for the collapse of the Obama dynasty, on his strong armed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who recently called Progressive Health Care activists, whom he wanted to steer to the middle of the Health Care debate, a bunch of idiots. Only Emanuel used a synonym for his last word which had him apologizing to the head of the Special Olympics. But it wasn't the people that Obama had appointed to cabinet positions or administration positions, such as Larry Summers, or Timothy Geithner, or the political insiders like Axelrod, which he depended on for advice- or even his strong armed acerbic chief- of -staff, Rahm Emanuel which caused all of Obama's present problem of most of the nation refusing to support his initiatives.
And although Obama inherited a fragile economy and high unemployment numbers plus 2 wars, when this would have been a challenging situation for any president, it really wasn't this situation which caused the conditions which will bring Obama to his knees. What has been responsible for the deconstruction of Obama's short dynasty, is the antitheses of what got him elected in the first place- his judgement.
If we return to the campaign, during the presidential debate in the primary, Obama castigated the Democratic candidates who supported the administration's plan to invade Iraq, especially Hillary Clinton, who was his chief opponent in the Primary. Obama stated, but without mentioning this information to the public- that even though he knew these candidates from the House and Senate were fed incorrect information from the C.I.A. and the Bush administration, that ultimately Clinton and the other candidates had poor judgement, and they were unworthy to lead the country based on that fact alone.
Ironically, Obama depicted himself as being the only serious candidate on the stage who had the good judgement to push against invading Iraq. However, he did not tell the public that he was not in the U.S. Senate at the time- so he did not have access to secret but erroneous information that convinced the others. Also, Obama didn't inform the public, that he was in the Illinois Senate where the subject of Iraq was not being voted on; nor that his speech, where he made his position known, that he was not in favor of invading Iraq, was just a simple last minute impromptu speech given on a street corner in Chicago. The speech was not an official policy position at that time. So much for this purveyor of good judgement.
Riding on this stance, as his entree to catching the brass ring of the presidency, Obama won the primary. After that, it was all a piece of cake running against a Republican in the year where there was a backlash against all Republicans, under an undefined, prosaic, generalized, and nebulous banner of change- which Americans broadly assumed was change from Republicans and their way of doing business in Washington.
This was our street corner hero's primary failure of judgement- he misinterpreted the mandate of Americans, which was a mere repudiation of Republicans and the specific agenda of Bush, such as his enormous spending; the neoconservative war of choice and not necessity; and incompetence in handling both the war, and in domestic matters, issues such as Katrina; and a penchant to tell all those in opposition that it was his- Bush's way- or the highway.
The irony here, is that a man who claimed he had good judgement, actually had the worst judgement of all the Democratic candidates on the primary stage, and even some of the Republican ones on their primary stage. Primarily this is because good judgement is not an isolate- it is not a singe event. Instead it is a continuum of actions which embody good decision making consistently made over time, and which support the argument that one indeed has the trait of good judgement.
That is not to say that in describing a single incident, that one cannot say that a person has shown good judgement in that single instance, or in that particular behavior. But what happened is Obama used a single instance of good judgement to disingenuously insinuate that he possessed a character trait of good judgement- in short the practice of regularly displaying good judgement. Again, nobody expected perfect judgement; but, Americans did expect that their president possessed this particular trait, since he used as an example, the good judgement he displayed in taking his position of against the invasion of Iraq to win the Democratic primary.
In the end, good judgement involves a set or cluster of skills that enables a person to display good judgement. Several of these traits are missing in Obama. These traits include: intelligence; specific experiences in a field that enables one to more easily and quickly make good judgement calls when he has expertise in that field; patience; self-control; humility; intuitive perceptiveness; emotional perceptiveness; intra-personal awareness and inter-personal awareness. In regard to these latter two, the competence level for both politicians and leaders should be above expectation on grading these two skills. On these particular skills, Obama's was below expectation, or seriously deficient. Overall, Obama was completely missing or sorely deficient in all of the above traits, except intelligence.
Obama has always portrayed by the press as being intelligent. However, possessing intelligence alone was not sufficient to enable Obama to display good judgement, the lack of which, will cause him to crash and burn eventually. For one thing, expertise or experience in the area of where good judgement is necessary, helps develop good judgement. For example, rats in a maze develop skills in ferreting out where the food pellets are located, and where the device that shocks them is located, thereby increasing the accuracy and speed with each trial or run in the maze.
As an example, compare how you are able to problem solve issues on the job, the tenth year of your employment, compared with how you performed your first year, and you will get the point. Did your I.Q. jump up several points in 10 years ? Obviously that was not the case. In addition, should you have management skills, even if you move to a new company, or you now sell a different product or service, you take your management skill set with you, and make the cross over of those skills quickly to your new employment situation .
In regard to management skills, Obama never had executive or business experience. He was a low level community organizer as he had two women over him who did run a church program in their community. These two women might have developed some management skills- but not Obama. As a lawyer he was second chair, but he never spoke to the jury- he just assisted the lead prosecutor who presented the case. He was a constitutional lawyer who was not as a permanent staff member with tenure, nor did he publish any papers or books on constitutional law. Obama was criticized on his performance by the black legislators who worked with him in the Illinois Senate, who stated that he worked hard his first year, but then slid the following years, taking credit for what they did. He was barely in the U.S. Senate a few months when he began to run for president.
A man must be ready to assume executive duties when he becomes president. The bottom line is that Harry Truman was right when he said, " the buck stops here." Obama never had any executive experience and the skill sets to transfer to the presidency. Even the people who he chose for positions in his administration, had little executive or business experience, as an exasperated Senator Blanche Lincoln stated to Obama during a conference on job creation with the Democrats and the president. She told the president that only 3% of his cabinet had any business experience.
Which takes us to the next skill which is necessary to have good judgement, which is humility. Humility is necessary to change course when one is wrong. Humility is also vital so a president never falls into the rut that he is always right or that he is infallible.What administration official or Democratic Congress would say in private and away from the cameras that Obama possesses humility ? There would be few or none. Obama has carved out the domestic part of governing and terrorism as the area he directs personally. Foreign affairs he has left to those with a history of experience for the most part. Few of those on the domestic side have experience in business. Why is this so ? Could it be Obama doesn't have the humility to surround himself with people who would have more experience and disparate viewpoints than he, in the area of the pool that he has chosen to swim- the domestic side.
These administrative officials involved in the domestic concerns of the nation are mainly academics similar to himself. Which leads us to the question of who is running the domestic store, and who among these has good judgement; since few, including Obama, have the one of the most important skills necessary to display sound judgement, which is experience in governing ?
Another prime example of Obama's lack of humility, which is a skill necessary to develop good judgement, and which caused him to fail, was seen when Scott Brown won the Massachusetts election and shocked the Democratic world. In contrast, President Clinton when his Health Care agenda failed, became a centrist and did more than survive- he flourished.
But you must have humility, to make the good judgement call when it is necessary to change. In contrast, Obama insisted that he would keep his Health Care Programs, his Energy Program, and even mentioned an Immigration Program in his State of the Union Speech. Unlike Clinton, for Obama it was full steam ahead, with what he was already doing, which was following a massive Progressive agenda at a time of economic peril, even though the American people were telling Obama that he had failed miserably. In the end, Obama did not pivot to the center as Clinton had prudently done, thereby showing poor judgement on Obama's part.
Two additional skills which are necessary for the development of good judgement are patience and self control. Again these are 2 characteristics which Obama lacks. When Obama began his presidency, the economic climate had already deteriorated, as he himself said, that we were standing on the edge of a cliff. Instead on fixing the economy and concentrating on job creation-Obama embraced a transformative program of Energy, Education, Immigration, and Health Care Initiatives, with the blessing of his chief - of - staff who said, " Never let an opportunity go to waste. "
Both should have realized the necessity of good judgement, given these economic conditions in 2009, whatever their political agenda was. We can easily see that logically, morally, humanitarian -wise, and even politically that job creation and fixing the economy should have been their first and only priority, until the unemployment problem was solved. Part of this reason relies on the logic that whatever the Obama administration undertook the first year, if it did well, or at least if they gave it their best try- then there would have been enough public support and therefore Congressional support to get additional monies for this project the following year. That project should have been the repair of the economy and immediate focus on job creation.
Obama did not have enough self-control or patience to wait until he fixed the economy to push through a Progressive Program. These skills which produce good judgement, would have enabled Obama to hold off on his transformative agenda. He squandered his public support instead on an Energy Bill that passed in the House but did not yet go through the process in the Senate, and probably will never be passed in the Senate- leaving it presently dead on arrival on the American door-step.
Then, as if by an after thought, Obama deduced that he had not much of a year left to get his crown jewel, Health Care Bill passed. He then pivoted, and focused on Health Care trying to get it finished before the 12 o'clock Cinderella Bell of his first year ended. In addition, Obama provided no guidance for creating this bill and no monitoring to those he delegated this trust- leaving us again with nothing substantial done on passage of a Health Care Law. Furthermore, there never was even a Plan B worked out by Obama, that if Health Care and or Energy were still in trouble by September 2009, that he would table them - and re-focus on jobs, while he still had some time left.
Part and parcel of good judgement is the ability to have an intuitive perceptiveness and emotional perceptiveness of what the climate on the ground is with the legislators of both parties and especially the public. Good politicians, military commanders, and leaders can smell a crisis brewing like a storm coming in with its wind, the gathering storm clouds, the coldness in the air, and the dropping barometer.
Obama does not have this sixth sense which Lyndon Johnson had or Bill Clinton possessed or he would have switched course on Health Care when the tea parties erupted. Obama would already have sensed trouble and sent his best people to Massachusetts long before he came face to face with the reversals there, when there were already symptoms of a populist revolt present, when Republicans won races in both New Jersey and Virginia. Again Obama should have prudently switched to a centrist position when the Massachusetts victory occurred, instead of reiterating that he was still going to push through his transformative agenda. Finally, he would have noticed the mass exodus of the Independents and did something about it before they were almost all gone.
The last two skills are crucial, if one wants to develop good judgement. They include having intrapersonal awareness and interpersonal awareness which coordinate with the qualities of both intuitive and emotional perceptiveness. Interpersonal awareness is a keen awareness of how people are feeling and reacting to their environment and to you. This is akin to having empathy.The cool, distant, and often disdainful and condescending Obama is seriously lacking this talent, which is the chief tool in the tool box of a president, if for no other reason than it is essential for his political survival.
Interpersonal awareness is an essential skill needed to develop judgement, as it is vitally necessary to pick up signals the public is sending a president if he wants to survive politically. When the president took office, he should have noted, that people were primarily concerned with the failing economy and the enormous loss of jobs. The public was not interested in Health Care, especially as the president's first priority. Plus, they felt that it was sucking up all of the legislative energy and money in the room, while job creation was all but ignored.
The voters were paralyzed with fear of economically losing everything, especially their job, even if they still had one. Obama failed to pick up these signals which the voters were sending him. He falsely assumed that he was doing what he thought was best for them. Plus, Obama made a crucial mistake, as he did not adequately and clearly define the benefits of the Health Care Program first; before attempting to pass this legislation. He should have began by first selling Health Care Bill to the public ahead of any legislative efforts to create and pass it. Instead, Obama decided he would explain his rationale to the public after the bill became law. Furthermore, it would be much later down the road, when he would explain to skeptical voters why he was indeed right on this issue.
The poor judgement Obama displayed of not selling Health Care first, but instead, allowing Republicans to negatively define Health Care first their way, allowed public opposition to grow and fester, and placed more pressure on Moderate Democrats not to pass massive segments of the bill, notably the public option.
Another example of how a lack of interpersonal perceptiveness led to a poor judgement decision on the part of Obama, occurred when he scheduled a civilian trial for the master-mind of 9-11, K.S.M., in New York City. Evidently there were very few sensitivity meetings with family members of the 3 plane loads of victims who died on 9-11, which resulted in these outraged family members protesting outside of Foley Square, where the trial was to be held. In addition, the Obama administration failed to anticipate that there should be someone from the administration sent out to figure out the cost and disruption to the city which the trial would cause. All of this resulted in the chief -of- police, and the mayor of New York, as well as several Democratic senators, requesting that the administration move the trial out of their city. This uproar has also has caused a several week examination of the validity of the Obama policy, which states that trying terrorists is better handled in civilian courts than in military tribunals or commissions.
This lack of interpersonal awareness is the one skill necessary for development of good judgement that will cause Obama to lose everything. It may be even more important to judgement than having prior experience in forming that good judgement. In any case, many voters were filled with revulsion for Obama and his initiatives for two reasons. One- was a lack of empathy by Obama over the large unemployment numbers, and by him not taking strong, immediate, and productive action on this issue, that was very similar to the revulsion Americans felt for Bush during his inept handling of Katrina. Two- Americans felt an even deeper aversion for someone who, when the public was helpless and at their lowest point, ignored what they were crying out for, and substituted a new program, Health Care, as an unwanted substitute for what they really needed and wanted. This actually added insult to injury- and painted Obama as unfeeling toward both the poor and middle class. The voter felt for the first time that Obama was an intellectual elitist who was oblivious to their pain.
There are several examples, were Obama has shown this lack of interpersonal awareness which is the most important skill associated with developing judgement. One example occurred during the primary campaign, when Obama insulted Pennsylvanians, by attributing their lack of voting for him in the primary to this unfeeling sociological interpretation- not based on fact. Obama explained his lack of votes in Pennsylvania to wealthy California donors when he said this, " It [ the lack of votes for my campaign ] was due to the fact that they [ Pennsylvanians ] cling to their guns and their religion and have an antipathy to those who are different than themselves. "
Pennsylvania is a state with a rich religious history, beginning with the Quakers, and full of forests filled with voters who are hunters, a point that the unperceptive Obama apparently missed. Also, it is a state that he had to win. Even weeks after this slight, Obama would not back down, until these statements affected his poll numbers. At that point Obama said, that he did not express himself as clearly as he could have. Again, this statement illustrates an almost unbelievable absence of lack of perceptiveness, when he gives an apology, that is more of an insult than apology. Obama subsequently and deservingly so, lost Pennsylvania in the primary.
The second example of a lack of interpersonal perceptiveness, a skill that must be mastered in order to have good judgement, was when Obama created a stimulus which was a sham stimulus, which had the effect of being simply a box to check off, on his to do list. Consequently only about 22% to 25% of the stimulus was designated to be distributed in 2009, the worst year for this economic disaster. At least 50% was to be distributed in 2010, an election year; and the last 25% in 2011, when Obama would start his re-election campaign for 2012. In addition, the stimulus was filled with ineffectual provisions and a great deal of it was allocated for Obama's pet projects in Energy and Health Care. Furthermore, only 3% of the stimulus went to infrastructure, which was a sound job creator, and only 1% was allocated for small business to use to create jobs.
This stimulus was supposed to create at least 3 million jobs and keep the unemployment rate at 8%. According to the government's own web site, the stimulus created or saved about 600,000 jobs. It is widely regarded by the public and press as a failure at this time. By his slip-shod handling of the original stimulus, not only did this president who lacked empathy, hurt Americans in 2009, but as a result, we are having difficulty getting a second stimulus or job's bill passed this year.
Recently, the House proposed a job's bill for about 180 billion dollars, while the Senate agreed on one for about 85 billion dollars. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, fearful of a backlash from opponents, has reduced the 85 billion dollar number to only 15 billion dollars primarily in tax cuts for this job bill. There is no provisions in that 15 billion to extend unemployment insurance to help the unemployed by giving them this insurance until the end of 2010, while the unemployment rate will remain at the 10 % mark this year.
What kind of a president would not make job creation his first priority in 2009; pass a mediocre stimulus bill then, knowing it was ineffective by its very design; and also knowing that we would therefore have a harder time of getting another stimulus or job bill passed the next time -if we needed one ? The answer is one without interpersonal awareness, and therefore without good judgement.
The final skill necessary for the development of good jugement is intra-personal awareness or the ability to know oneself. Obama is so blown about by storms of political winds, that he appears to not have that internal compass we all need, pointing to true north on the important issues. Will Progressive Democrats ever know if Obama was really for the public option or not ? He never said so. He equivocated on his stance of his personal approval of a public option, but did not require it in his Health Care Bill. He is for a surge in Afghanistan, but he is also for leaving the surge behind in July, and withdrawing. He is for a civilian trial for terrorists, but if the political wind changed in New York, than that is a horse of a different color, and perhaps he is now, not for civilian trials. Does this president have a core of inner convictions that can't be bought, bartered, or traded for someone's vote- anybody's vote ? We may never know.
Opponents of Obama who challenged him during his campaign for president, were told in a simplistic matter, that experience didn't matter. Therefore, Obama's lack of experience did not matter, because good judgement was a more important criterion for a president to have than experience. Plus, Obama appeared to excel in exercising good judgement, according to these supporters.
However, since Obama has become president, he has ironically exercised nothing but bad judgement. In fact, Obama's judgement is becoming worse. Furthermore, he has shown no inclination to develop good judgement, or to reverse course once he has made a bad judgement call. Therefore, if Americans overlooked Obama's lack of experience during the presidential election, and instead elected him for his good judgement, why should we then keep endorsing him, when he has clearly shown that on the job he is incapable of exercising good judgement ? This might well be a judgement call Americans will be forced to make themselves in 2012.
In conclusion, Obama 's failure will both now and in the future persist, because he lacks good judgement and more importantly, the multiple skills that are necessary for him to acquire it, before he can fully exercise that good jugement. These skills are much like a set of techniques you must master first, before you can become a skilled skier, tennis player, basketball player, surgeon, musician, or leader of the free world. There is very little evidence that Obama is planning to develop these skills, or feels the need to do so.
Consequently, Obama will lose the House and many Senate seats in 2010. He will most likely also lose his re-election bid, in 2012. We have seen enough of Obama's lack of good judgement to make our own determination -if he should be president in 2012 or not. As Winston Churchill said, " The further back you go, the further forward you will see. " In the end, we will have to depend on our own good judgement to determine Obama's political fate in 2010 and 2012, which will depend on whether we, ourselves, have developed good judgement skills or not.
So what was the fatal flaw that will cause Obama's downfall, especially when this rosy picture was what the average voter saw: a man with a glowing and disarming personality; the charismatic candidate with the ability to give an eloquent speech flawlessly at the drop of a dime; the consummate politician who held the abject adoration of a plurality of voters, and had a Midas touch of winning almost every campaign he ever entered; and most of all, a Teflon exterior impervious to any criticism, no matter how serious it seemed at the time, that was leveled at him by the public or the press ? Again, what will do him in ? What is doing him in right now- and what is steadily moving him to that place where he will finally leave the American political stage in 2012 ?
As an answer to this question, we can point to Obama's dramatic loss in the polls from the high point, when he was first elected with polls at 68%, to his present dramatic drop with polls in the mid - forties. Additionally, we can also reference the fact that Independents have left him in droves. We can list the special elections and races that have prophetically, recently swung to Republicans- signaling what is to be his fate in the future. The most telling of those races were: New Jersey, Virginia, and most disturbingly the seat that Edward Kennedy once held, and which Democrats held in Massachusetts for over 60 years. These are however only symptoms; and not the root cause of the Obama decline, much like a high fever can be symptomatic of an infection, when it is the infection itself, which is the true cause of the illness.
There will be others who say, that Obama has an insular cadre of advisers, who are his political staff as well as his original campaign advisers. They propelled him into the presidency. Obama detractors imply that this cadre of political friends caused him to make poor decisions. Among those blamed were: David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe, and Robert Gibbs, most of which were very close to Obama in his Chicago days, with the exception of Gibbs who was from the South. Obama critics claim that they formed a myopic lens through which all Obama's decisions are scanned, directly before he makes his final decision, even though a different group of independent outsiders might have originally contributed to the initial discussion.
Others lay blame for the collapse of the Obama dynasty, on his strong armed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who recently called Progressive Health Care activists, whom he wanted to steer to the middle of the Health Care debate, a bunch of idiots. Only Emanuel used a synonym for his last word which had him apologizing to the head of the Special Olympics. But it wasn't the people that Obama had appointed to cabinet positions or administration positions, such as Larry Summers, or Timothy Geithner, or the political insiders like Axelrod, which he depended on for advice- or even his strong armed acerbic chief- of -staff, Rahm Emanuel which caused all of Obama's present problem of most of the nation refusing to support his initiatives.
And although Obama inherited a fragile economy and high unemployment numbers plus 2 wars, when this would have been a challenging situation for any president, it really wasn't this situation which caused the conditions which will bring Obama to his knees. What has been responsible for the deconstruction of Obama's short dynasty, is the antitheses of what got him elected in the first place- his judgement.
If we return to the campaign, during the presidential debate in the primary, Obama castigated the Democratic candidates who supported the administration's plan to invade Iraq, especially Hillary Clinton, who was his chief opponent in the Primary. Obama stated, but without mentioning this information to the public- that even though he knew these candidates from the House and Senate were fed incorrect information from the C.I.A. and the Bush administration, that ultimately Clinton and the other candidates had poor judgement, and they were unworthy to lead the country based on that fact alone.
Ironically, Obama depicted himself as being the only serious candidate on the stage who had the good judgement to push against invading Iraq. However, he did not tell the public that he was not in the U.S. Senate at the time- so he did not have access to secret but erroneous information that convinced the others. Also, Obama didn't inform the public, that he was in the Illinois Senate where the subject of Iraq was not being voted on; nor that his speech, where he made his position known, that he was not in favor of invading Iraq, was just a simple last minute impromptu speech given on a street corner in Chicago. The speech was not an official policy position at that time. So much for this purveyor of good judgement.
Riding on this stance, as his entree to catching the brass ring of the presidency, Obama won the primary. After that, it was all a piece of cake running against a Republican in the year where there was a backlash against all Republicans, under an undefined, prosaic, generalized, and nebulous banner of change- which Americans broadly assumed was change from Republicans and their way of doing business in Washington.
This was our street corner hero's primary failure of judgement- he misinterpreted the mandate of Americans, which was a mere repudiation of Republicans and the specific agenda of Bush, such as his enormous spending; the neoconservative war of choice and not necessity; and incompetence in handling both the war, and in domestic matters, issues such as Katrina; and a penchant to tell all those in opposition that it was his- Bush's way- or the highway.
The irony here, is that a man who claimed he had good judgement, actually had the worst judgement of all the Democratic candidates on the primary stage, and even some of the Republican ones on their primary stage. Primarily this is because good judgement is not an isolate- it is not a singe event. Instead it is a continuum of actions which embody good decision making consistently made over time, and which support the argument that one indeed has the trait of good judgement.
That is not to say that in describing a single incident, that one cannot say that a person has shown good judgement in that single instance, or in that particular behavior. But what happened is Obama used a single instance of good judgement to disingenuously insinuate that he possessed a character trait of good judgement- in short the practice of regularly displaying good judgement. Again, nobody expected perfect judgement; but, Americans did expect that their president possessed this particular trait, since he used as an example, the good judgement he displayed in taking his position of against the invasion of Iraq to win the Democratic primary.
In the end, good judgement involves a set or cluster of skills that enables a person to display good judgement. Several of these traits are missing in Obama. These traits include: intelligence; specific experiences in a field that enables one to more easily and quickly make good judgement calls when he has expertise in that field; patience; self-control; humility; intuitive perceptiveness; emotional perceptiveness; intra-personal awareness and inter-personal awareness. In regard to these latter two, the competence level for both politicians and leaders should be above expectation on grading these two skills. On these particular skills, Obama's was below expectation, or seriously deficient. Overall, Obama was completely missing or sorely deficient in all of the above traits, except intelligence.
Obama has always portrayed by the press as being intelligent. However, possessing intelligence alone was not sufficient to enable Obama to display good judgement, the lack of which, will cause him to crash and burn eventually. For one thing, expertise or experience in the area of where good judgement is necessary, helps develop good judgement. For example, rats in a maze develop skills in ferreting out where the food pellets are located, and where the device that shocks them is located, thereby increasing the accuracy and speed with each trial or run in the maze.
As an example, compare how you are able to problem solve issues on the job, the tenth year of your employment, compared with how you performed your first year, and you will get the point. Did your I.Q. jump up several points in 10 years ? Obviously that was not the case. In addition, should you have management skills, even if you move to a new company, or you now sell a different product or service, you take your management skill set with you, and make the cross over of those skills quickly to your new employment situation .
In regard to management skills, Obama never had executive or business experience. He was a low level community organizer as he had two women over him who did run a church program in their community. These two women might have developed some management skills- but not Obama. As a lawyer he was second chair, but he never spoke to the jury- he just assisted the lead prosecutor who presented the case. He was a constitutional lawyer who was not as a permanent staff member with tenure, nor did he publish any papers or books on constitutional law. Obama was criticized on his performance by the black legislators who worked with him in the Illinois Senate, who stated that he worked hard his first year, but then slid the following years, taking credit for what they did. He was barely in the U.S. Senate a few months when he began to run for president.
A man must be ready to assume executive duties when he becomes president. The bottom line is that Harry Truman was right when he said, " the buck stops here." Obama never had any executive experience and the skill sets to transfer to the presidency. Even the people who he chose for positions in his administration, had little executive or business experience, as an exasperated Senator Blanche Lincoln stated to Obama during a conference on job creation with the Democrats and the president. She told the president that only 3% of his cabinet had any business experience.
Which takes us to the next skill which is necessary to have good judgement, which is humility. Humility is necessary to change course when one is wrong. Humility is also vital so a president never falls into the rut that he is always right or that he is infallible.What administration official or Democratic Congress would say in private and away from the cameras that Obama possesses humility ? There would be few or none. Obama has carved out the domestic part of governing and terrorism as the area he directs personally. Foreign affairs he has left to those with a history of experience for the most part. Few of those on the domestic side have experience in business. Why is this so ? Could it be Obama doesn't have the humility to surround himself with people who would have more experience and disparate viewpoints than he, in the area of the pool that he has chosen to swim- the domestic side.
These administrative officials involved in the domestic concerns of the nation are mainly academics similar to himself. Which leads us to the question of who is running the domestic store, and who among these has good judgement; since few, including Obama, have the one of the most important skills necessary to display sound judgement, which is experience in governing ?
Another prime example of Obama's lack of humility, which is a skill necessary to develop good judgement, and which caused him to fail, was seen when Scott Brown won the Massachusetts election and shocked the Democratic world. In contrast, President Clinton when his Health Care agenda failed, became a centrist and did more than survive- he flourished.
But you must have humility, to make the good judgement call when it is necessary to change. In contrast, Obama insisted that he would keep his Health Care Programs, his Energy Program, and even mentioned an Immigration Program in his State of the Union Speech. Unlike Clinton, for Obama it was full steam ahead, with what he was already doing, which was following a massive Progressive agenda at a time of economic peril, even though the American people were telling Obama that he had failed miserably. In the end, Obama did not pivot to the center as Clinton had prudently done, thereby showing poor judgement on Obama's part.
Two additional skills which are necessary for the development of good judgement are patience and self control. Again these are 2 characteristics which Obama lacks. When Obama began his presidency, the economic climate had already deteriorated, as he himself said, that we were standing on the edge of a cliff. Instead on fixing the economy and concentrating on job creation-Obama embraced a transformative program of Energy, Education, Immigration, and Health Care Initiatives, with the blessing of his chief - of - staff who said, " Never let an opportunity go to waste. "
Both should have realized the necessity of good judgement, given these economic conditions in 2009, whatever their political agenda was. We can easily see that logically, morally, humanitarian -wise, and even politically that job creation and fixing the economy should have been their first and only priority, until the unemployment problem was solved. Part of this reason relies on the logic that whatever the Obama administration undertook the first year, if it did well, or at least if they gave it their best try- then there would have been enough public support and therefore Congressional support to get additional monies for this project the following year. That project should have been the repair of the economy and immediate focus on job creation.
Obama did not have enough self-control or patience to wait until he fixed the economy to push through a Progressive Program. These skills which produce good judgement, would have enabled Obama to hold off on his transformative agenda. He squandered his public support instead on an Energy Bill that passed in the House but did not yet go through the process in the Senate, and probably will never be passed in the Senate- leaving it presently dead on arrival on the American door-step.
Then, as if by an after thought, Obama deduced that he had not much of a year left to get his crown jewel, Health Care Bill passed. He then pivoted, and focused on Health Care trying to get it finished before the 12 o'clock Cinderella Bell of his first year ended. In addition, Obama provided no guidance for creating this bill and no monitoring to those he delegated this trust- leaving us again with nothing substantial done on passage of a Health Care Law. Furthermore, there never was even a Plan B worked out by Obama, that if Health Care and or Energy were still in trouble by September 2009, that he would table them - and re-focus on jobs, while he still had some time left.
Part and parcel of good judgement is the ability to have an intuitive perceptiveness and emotional perceptiveness of what the climate on the ground is with the legislators of both parties and especially the public. Good politicians, military commanders, and leaders can smell a crisis brewing like a storm coming in with its wind, the gathering storm clouds, the coldness in the air, and the dropping barometer.
Obama does not have this sixth sense which Lyndon Johnson had or Bill Clinton possessed or he would have switched course on Health Care when the tea parties erupted. Obama would already have sensed trouble and sent his best people to Massachusetts long before he came face to face with the reversals there, when there were already symptoms of a populist revolt present, when Republicans won races in both New Jersey and Virginia. Again Obama should have prudently switched to a centrist position when the Massachusetts victory occurred, instead of reiterating that he was still going to push through his transformative agenda. Finally, he would have noticed the mass exodus of the Independents and did something about it before they were almost all gone.
The last two skills are crucial, if one wants to develop good judgement. They include having intrapersonal awareness and interpersonal awareness which coordinate with the qualities of both intuitive and emotional perceptiveness. Interpersonal awareness is a keen awareness of how people are feeling and reacting to their environment and to you. This is akin to having empathy.The cool, distant, and often disdainful and condescending Obama is seriously lacking this talent, which is the chief tool in the tool box of a president, if for no other reason than it is essential for his political survival.
Interpersonal awareness is an essential skill needed to develop judgement, as it is vitally necessary to pick up signals the public is sending a president if he wants to survive politically. When the president took office, he should have noted, that people were primarily concerned with the failing economy and the enormous loss of jobs. The public was not interested in Health Care, especially as the president's first priority. Plus, they felt that it was sucking up all of the legislative energy and money in the room, while job creation was all but ignored.
The voters were paralyzed with fear of economically losing everything, especially their job, even if they still had one. Obama failed to pick up these signals which the voters were sending him. He falsely assumed that he was doing what he thought was best for them. Plus, Obama made a crucial mistake, as he did not adequately and clearly define the benefits of the Health Care Program first; before attempting to pass this legislation. He should have began by first selling Health Care Bill to the public ahead of any legislative efforts to create and pass it. Instead, Obama decided he would explain his rationale to the public after the bill became law. Furthermore, it would be much later down the road, when he would explain to skeptical voters why he was indeed right on this issue.
The poor judgement Obama displayed of not selling Health Care first, but instead, allowing Republicans to negatively define Health Care first their way, allowed public opposition to grow and fester, and placed more pressure on Moderate Democrats not to pass massive segments of the bill, notably the public option.
Another example of how a lack of interpersonal perceptiveness led to a poor judgement decision on the part of Obama, occurred when he scheduled a civilian trial for the master-mind of 9-11, K.S.M., in New York City. Evidently there were very few sensitivity meetings with family members of the 3 plane loads of victims who died on 9-11, which resulted in these outraged family members protesting outside of Foley Square, where the trial was to be held. In addition, the Obama administration failed to anticipate that there should be someone from the administration sent out to figure out the cost and disruption to the city which the trial would cause. All of this resulted in the chief -of- police, and the mayor of New York, as well as several Democratic senators, requesting that the administration move the trial out of their city. This uproar has also has caused a several week examination of the validity of the Obama policy, which states that trying terrorists is better handled in civilian courts than in military tribunals or commissions.
This lack of interpersonal awareness is the one skill necessary for development of good judgement that will cause Obama to lose everything. It may be even more important to judgement than having prior experience in forming that good judgement. In any case, many voters were filled with revulsion for Obama and his initiatives for two reasons. One- was a lack of empathy by Obama over the large unemployment numbers, and by him not taking strong, immediate, and productive action on this issue, that was very similar to the revulsion Americans felt for Bush during his inept handling of Katrina. Two- Americans felt an even deeper aversion for someone who, when the public was helpless and at their lowest point, ignored what they were crying out for, and substituted a new program, Health Care, as an unwanted substitute for what they really needed and wanted. This actually added insult to injury- and painted Obama as unfeeling toward both the poor and middle class. The voter felt for the first time that Obama was an intellectual elitist who was oblivious to their pain.
There are several examples, were Obama has shown this lack of interpersonal awareness which is the most important skill associated with developing judgement. One example occurred during the primary campaign, when Obama insulted Pennsylvanians, by attributing their lack of voting for him in the primary to this unfeeling sociological interpretation- not based on fact. Obama explained his lack of votes in Pennsylvania to wealthy California donors when he said this, " It [ the lack of votes for my campaign ] was due to the fact that they [ Pennsylvanians ] cling to their guns and their religion and have an antipathy to those who are different than themselves. "
Pennsylvania is a state with a rich religious history, beginning with the Quakers, and full of forests filled with voters who are hunters, a point that the unperceptive Obama apparently missed. Also, it is a state that he had to win. Even weeks after this slight, Obama would not back down, until these statements affected his poll numbers. At that point Obama said, that he did not express himself as clearly as he could have. Again, this statement illustrates an almost unbelievable absence of lack of perceptiveness, when he gives an apology, that is more of an insult than apology. Obama subsequently and deservingly so, lost Pennsylvania in the primary.
The second example of a lack of interpersonal perceptiveness, a skill that must be mastered in order to have good judgement, was when Obama created a stimulus which was a sham stimulus, which had the effect of being simply a box to check off, on his to do list. Consequently only about 22% to 25% of the stimulus was designated to be distributed in 2009, the worst year for this economic disaster. At least 50% was to be distributed in 2010, an election year; and the last 25% in 2011, when Obama would start his re-election campaign for 2012. In addition, the stimulus was filled with ineffectual provisions and a great deal of it was allocated for Obama's pet projects in Energy and Health Care. Furthermore, only 3% of the stimulus went to infrastructure, which was a sound job creator, and only 1% was allocated for small business to use to create jobs.
This stimulus was supposed to create at least 3 million jobs and keep the unemployment rate at 8%. According to the government's own web site, the stimulus created or saved about 600,000 jobs. It is widely regarded by the public and press as a failure at this time. By his slip-shod handling of the original stimulus, not only did this president who lacked empathy, hurt Americans in 2009, but as a result, we are having difficulty getting a second stimulus or job's bill passed this year.
Recently, the House proposed a job's bill for about 180 billion dollars, while the Senate agreed on one for about 85 billion dollars. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, fearful of a backlash from opponents, has reduced the 85 billion dollar number to only 15 billion dollars primarily in tax cuts for this job bill. There is no provisions in that 15 billion to extend unemployment insurance to help the unemployed by giving them this insurance until the end of 2010, while the unemployment rate will remain at the 10 % mark this year.
What kind of a president would not make job creation his first priority in 2009; pass a mediocre stimulus bill then, knowing it was ineffective by its very design; and also knowing that we would therefore have a harder time of getting another stimulus or job bill passed the next time -if we needed one ? The answer is one without interpersonal awareness, and therefore without good judgement.
The final skill necessary for the development of good jugement is intra-personal awareness or the ability to know oneself. Obama is so blown about by storms of political winds, that he appears to not have that internal compass we all need, pointing to true north on the important issues. Will Progressive Democrats ever know if Obama was really for the public option or not ? He never said so. He equivocated on his stance of his personal approval of a public option, but did not require it in his Health Care Bill. He is for a surge in Afghanistan, but he is also for leaving the surge behind in July, and withdrawing. He is for a civilian trial for terrorists, but if the political wind changed in New York, than that is a horse of a different color, and perhaps he is now, not for civilian trials. Does this president have a core of inner convictions that can't be bought, bartered, or traded for someone's vote- anybody's vote ? We may never know.
Opponents of Obama who challenged him during his campaign for president, were told in a simplistic matter, that experience didn't matter. Therefore, Obama's lack of experience did not matter, because good judgement was a more important criterion for a president to have than experience. Plus, Obama appeared to excel in exercising good judgement, according to these supporters.
However, since Obama has become president, he has ironically exercised nothing but bad judgement. In fact, Obama's judgement is becoming worse. Furthermore, he has shown no inclination to develop good judgement, or to reverse course once he has made a bad judgement call. Therefore, if Americans overlooked Obama's lack of experience during the presidential election, and instead elected him for his good judgement, why should we then keep endorsing him, when he has clearly shown that on the job he is incapable of exercising good judgement ? This might well be a judgement call Americans will be forced to make themselves in 2012.
In conclusion, Obama 's failure will both now and in the future persist, because he lacks good judgement and more importantly, the multiple skills that are necessary for him to acquire it, before he can fully exercise that good jugement. These skills are much like a set of techniques you must master first, before you can become a skilled skier, tennis player, basketball player, surgeon, musician, or leader of the free world. There is very little evidence that Obama is planning to develop these skills, or feels the need to do so.
Consequently, Obama will lose the House and many Senate seats in 2010. He will most likely also lose his re-election bid, in 2012. We have seen enough of Obama's lack of good judgement to make our own determination -if he should be president in 2012 or not. As Winston Churchill said, " The further back you go, the further forward you will see. " In the end, we will have to depend on our own good judgement to determine Obama's political fate in 2010 and 2012, which will depend on whether we, ourselves, have developed good judgement skills or not.