Is it really already time to declare the Obama presidency a failure?
Paul Krugman, glomming on to the Failed Presidency of Barack Obama meme originated earlier this week by the FT's Martin Wolf, writes in his column today:
So far the Obama administration's response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It's early days yet, but we're falling behind the curve.
First of all, Obama has been in office for all of three weeks. In that time he has gotten a stimulus package of a size that would have been pretty much unimaginable (except maybe to Krugman) a couple of months ago almost all the way through the legislative process, filled his cabinet and top advisory ranks at dizzying speed but made a few missteps along the way, and has yet to unveil a definitive plan for fixing a banking system embroiled in a once-in-a-century crisis. So yeah, the guy should probably just admit his utter failure and resign right now. Seriously, has the news cycle really sped up so much that a presidency is to be judged on its first three weeks, against a standard that I really don't think any previous White House would have met?
But more to the point that Krugman makes in the paragraph cited above, is the current approach really "reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s"? Japan didn't even begin to attempt a serious cleanup of its banking system until a decade after its real estate bubble burst. We're about a year-and-a-half or two into our financial meltdown in the U.S. Where did Sweden--now everybody's favorite example of how to tackle a banking crisis right (although you read about it here first)--stand two years into its early 1990s financial debacle? Pretty much where we are now, with the economy in a deep recession and a half-baked financial rescue effort that had averted total meltdown but had come nowhere near resolving the banks' problems.
"Basically we did all the same mistakes," said Anders Borg, Sweden's current finance minister (whose pony tail Tim Geithner really ought to think about emulating) at Davos a couple of weeks ago. "In the end, the U.S. and U.K. will probably end up as we did." That is, forcing a sweeping writedown of bad assets and fully nationalizing (albeit only temporarily) a few big banks in the process.
Now I'm all for avoiding mistakes, and for speeding things up on the whole stress-testing-and-nationalization front. But to imply that we're currently moving at a pace similar to that of Japan in the 1990s is nonsense.
-
1
Justin, I'm in total agreement with you about the sensationalism in the press. I understand how the media likes to just report conflict. Hey, I can't look away from accidents. But, seriously, the media is beginning to look like the 'boy-who-cried-wolf.' How many supposed body blows (still birth of bipartisanship, Daschle, Judd, etc...) is Obama going to take? It doesn't seem to phase him or slow him up. Has any of the body blows prevented him from enacting any legislation or orders? When that ever happens, then call it a body blow. Otherwise, it's just sparring.
-
2
Justin --
With all due respect, Obama didn't fall off the turnip truck and into the Oval Office three weeks ago. He's been running for President for two years, and was elected three months ago -- bringing on his coattails significant increases in Democrats in both Houses of Congress.
_
In other words, he should have hit the ground running, and there should have been no problem getting a recovery package this size passed considering the mood of the country. (the main reason I supported Clinton over Obama is because she would be 'ready on day one'; its now glaringly obvious that Obama really doesn't have the depth of knowledge of economic issues that he needed on 'day one')
_
And while its too early to declare his presidency a total failure, to date it should be ranked as one. (The only way that Obama doesn't get a "F" so far is if we grade on a curve based on the enormous challenges he faces -- the problem is that we should have a president who doesn't have to be graded on a curve to avoid an "F".) Not only did Obama prioritize maintaining his image as The Lightbringer over an effective, comprehensive, and comprehensible, economic recovery package, his efforts to get headlines saying "Obama Succeeds in Changing How Washington Works" was a complete failure.
_
IMHO, the reason there was so much resistance from the GOP on the recovery package was based on denying Obama the political benefits of those headlines. The "stimulus plan" stopped being about the economy, and became about Obama's efforts to achieve a political victory and the GOP's efforts to stymie that victory.
_
So what we're left with is an economic stimulus package that falls short of what is needed while providing unnecessary tax cuts that only make the disasterous federal deficit worse, and a Treasury secretary who is beholden to Wall Street fat cats propping up the failed financial system in a way that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans. -
3
Mr. Plukasiak
Please! You think Clinton would have dome better? Give me a break.
-
4
I find that my beliefs and outlooks have almost nothing in common with plukasiak. And I certainly don't think Hillary would have done any better under any circumstances.
-
But I find myself in increasing agreement with his comments on the economic crisis. Could there really be common ground across America? -
5
You think Clinton would have dome better? Give me a break.
_
absolutely.
_
First off, Clinton would have submitted her own economic recovery legislation to Congress, rather than let Pelosi and Reid each create their own -- and that plan would not have included tax cuts as a "bipartisan" gesture.
_
And she would have used her political capital in a "crisis" atmosphere to get it passed with few modifications -- and every modification would have come with a vote attached to it.
_
Lets not forget that the Bill Clinton era started with a budget proposal that barely passed in the House of representatives -- and brought us eight years of real growth.
_
Clinton didn't want to be president to "change the way Washington works". She wanted to "make Washington work for the people." The difference between those two ideas is vast -- its the difference between a concentration on getting things done and a concentration on "the process".
_
As an aging lefty, I know that focussing on "the process" is a recipe for getting nothing significant accomplished -- and this is especially true when every one is not of like mind. Hillary Clinton understands that -- and while the media environment would be far more toxic if she was President, she'd not only be getting stuff done, I'm confident that she'd be getting the right stuff done.
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Jack Murtha, 77, Dies
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- OH Gov Poll: Kasich Maintains Lead
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Google Looks To Crush Facebook, Twitter With a More Sociable Gmail
- White House Health Care Meeting Met With Skepticism On The Hill
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Venezuela's Opposition Protests Slur Chavez at Ball Game
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
- Foreign Fish Species Threaten Great Lakes Ecosystem
- 'Black Hearts': On Green, Iraq's 'Triangle of Death'
- Israel vs. Hizballah: Drumbeats of War
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- From Comcast to Xfinity: Does Name Change Conjure Porn?













RSS