Archive for the ‘education’ Category

Gregg Goes From Bipartisan Symbol to Top Obama Critic

March 28, 2009

Sen. Judd Gregg, who was President Obama’s commerce secretary nominee until withdrawing his name from consideration, has emerged as the toughest critic of the president’s handling of the economy and has helped galvanize Republican opposition to Obama’s policies.

Fox News
At first, the relationship between President Obama and Sen. Judd Gregg looked like love at first sight, proof that opposites do attract.

Obama is a 47-year-old left-leaning Democrat who believes in the power of government to solve people’s problems. Gregg is a 61-year-old New Hampshire Republican who advocated limited government and made millions through business investments.

Their unlikely partnership seemed destined to transcend partisan lines and symbolize the change that Obama promised to bring to Washington.

But Gregg, who was Obama’s commerce secretary nominee until withdrawing his name from consideration, has emerged as the toughest critic of the president’s handling of the economy and has helped galvanize Republican opposition to Obama’s policies.

He warned on Monday that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal will lead to unsustainable debt levels and send the country on a fiscal path resembling that of a “banana republic.”

Gregg kept up his attacks on Obama’s budget request Saturday in the weekly Republican radio address, saying the path to prosperity is not the excessive spending proposed by the president but limited spending that holds down the growth of government, taxes and debt.

The senator said Obama’s proposals “represent an extraordinary move of our government to the left.”

He said Obama “is not trying to hide this; in fact, he is very forthright in stating that he believes that by greatly expanding the spending, the taxing and the borrowing of our government, this will lead us to prosperity.”

Like most relationships, this one began with mutual admiration, respect and trust, with flowery compliments flowing between each other.

At their first public appearance together a week-and-a-half before Valentine’s Day, Obama called Gregg “a master of reaching across the aisle to get things done. He will be an astounding addition, a trusted voice in my Cabinet and an able and competent ambassador … I can think of no finer steward for our nation’s commerce.”

In turn, Gregg praised Obama’s economic stimulus proposal to stabilize the economic slide and pull the country out of recession as an “extraordinarily bold, aggressive, effective and comprehensive plan.”

Read the rest:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100d
ays/2009/03/28/gregg-goes-bipartisan-sy
mbol-obama-critic/

In his radio address Saturday, Gregg countered each of Obama’s policy principles:

— “It is the individual American who creates prosperity and good jobs, not the government.”

— “We believe that you create energy independence not by sticking Americans with a brand new national sales tax on everyone’s electric bill, but by expanding the production of American energy … while also conserving more.”

–“We also believe you improve everyone’s health care not by nationalizing the health care system and putting the government between you and your doctor, but by assuring that every American has access to quality health insurance and choices in health care.”

Advertisements

Obama Talks About “Making Hard Choices,” But Budget Is “Have It All Now”

March 26, 2009

Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff’d and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede.
Hamlet, I, iii, 51-55

Standing before millions of cheering admirers on January 20, the newly christened President Obama decried “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” This idea — that our nation has suffered because we have punted for too long on difficult decisions — was a key theme during Obama’s campaign, and it has been repeated with the frequency of a corporate ad jingle in the early days of his presidency.

By Philip Klein
American Spectator

At last month’s White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Obama declared that, “In the coming years, we’ll be forced to make more tough choices, and do much more to address our long-term challenges.” He reiterated this point during Tuesday night’s primetime press conference.

“What I’ve said here in Washington is that we’ve got to make some tough choices,” Obama said. “We got to make some tough budgetary choices.”

Obama is correct in his diagnosis. The central failure of the Bush era was the belief that we can do everything we want — cut taxes, expand military and homeland security spending, fight two wars, give prescription drugs to senior citizens, increase federal funding for education and energy — and do it all without facing any long-term costs. It was a philosophy that was also reflected in Americans who bought houses that they couldn’t afford and financial institutions that issued loans on borrowed money at an unsustainable pace.

The $1.3 trillion deficit and the weakened economy that Obama is all too eager to remind us he inherited has been the direct result of a stubborn refusal to accept necessary tradeoffs and face the reality that we can’t have everything that we want.

Unfortunately, while he fancies himself a courageous leader, Obama’s budget does not reflect hard choices. He is telling the American people that we can spend trillions of dollars on an economic stimulus package, a housing bailout, and multiple financial bailouts without experiencing inflation or requiring broad tax increases. He is insisting that we can save money by providing health care for every American, that we can accomplish this without rationing care, and that the quality of medical treatment will improve. He is promising that we can save money by throwing more federal dollars into energy and that we can increase federal spending on education while cutting taxes on 95 percent of Americans.

The White House has not offered actual numbers to back up Obama’s claims about this utopian fiscal future, and the only numbers we do have undercut his points entirely.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of his budget, and it found that his policies would more than double the public debt to $17.3 trillion by 2019, equal to a staggering 82.4 percent of the economy.

While Obama’s budget is named, “A New Era of Responsibility,” when questioned about his deficit claims, his first instinct is to point fingers. During Tuesday’s press conference, he snapped, “as I recall I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.” This may be true, but since taking over, Obama has already increased the projected 2009 deficit to $1.8 trillion, according to the CBO. As comedian Jackie Mason quipped recently, “If I inherited a fire, does that mean I have to make the fire bigger and worse?”

Obama also reiterated his claim that he will cut the deficit in half within five years. It’s true that according to projections, the deficit will drop during that time period, but this argument is a red herring.

Given that the annual deficit will be jacked up to $1.8 trillion in 2009, cutting it in half within five years is no landmark achievement, because the deficits are expected to shrink naturally assuming the economy recovers. In fact, if we were simply to follow current laws, the CBO estimates that the cumulative deficits for 2010 to 2019 would be $4.4 trillion, or less than half the $9.3 trillion that would result from Obama’s budget. Also, while the deficit does decrease in 2011 and 2012, it starts to grow again the following year.

On the campaign trail last June, Obama declared that the Bush administration was “the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history.” At the time he made that statement, Bush’s record deficit was $413 billion in 2004. Yet according to the CBO, if Obama’s budget gets passed, the deficit will never be lower than $658 billion during his time in office should he serve two terms.

During Tuesday’s press conference, Obama argued that part of the reason that the CBO’s data is worse than the White House projections is that the CBO assumes a lower rate of economic growth. But even looking at the rosier estimates, the Obama administration still projects the public debt exploding from $8.4 trillion in 2009 to $15.4 trillion by 2019.

Related:
The Great Give Away of Taxpayer Money By Bigger and Bigger Government

President Tries To Harness Public Anger To Move His Budget

March 26, 2009

In attempting to harness public anger over the financial crisis on behalf of his budget, President Obama is confronting the politically uncomfortable fact that the success of his long-term agenda and Wall Street’s recovery are intertwined.

By Alec MacGillis and Scott Wilson
The Washington Post

That acknowledgment is reflected in the president’s shift in tone from his tempestuous town hall appearances in California last week to Tuesday evening’s more sober appraisal of who is responsible for the frozen credit markets, insolvent banks and burst real estate bubble.

He condemned Wall Street “Ponzi schemes, even when they’re legal, where a relatively few do spectacularly well while the middle class loses ground” during a March 18 town hall event in California’s Orange County, which is now closing elementary schools because of falling property tax revenue. Back inside the Beltway, the president said during his prime-time news conference that some of us “can’t afford to demonize every investor and entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit.”

In the balance as he attempts to walk this line is Obama’s long-term agenda, embodied in the budget he was selling on Capitol Hill yesterday and which a House panel passed on a party-line vote late last night. To build public support for his $3.6 trillion package of plans to reform health care, energy and education, Obama is attempting a kind of transference — persuading Americans that the excesses crystallized by bonuses for the AIG unit at the center of the financial collapse can only be fixed by the systemic overhaul of the economy represented by his budget.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/w
p-dyn/content/article/2009/03/2
5/AR2009032503117.html?hpid=
topnews

Brawl over Obama budget brews in Congress

March 24, 2009

Barack Obama is preparing for one of the toughest fights of his young presidency as Congress begins work on a budget that may trim his spending plans but back his healthcare, energy and education proposals.

By Richard Cowan
Reuters

Obama will meet fellow Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday to try to shore up support for a budget blueprint that likely would increase the deficit more than initially estimated by the White House — it was forecast at $1.4 trillion for next year.

 

The House Budget Committee will begin a marathon session on Wednesday to write its version of the budget plan, followed a day later by the Senate Budget Committee’s unveiling of its budget plan for fiscal 2010 and the four subsequent years.

 

Republicans say Obama’s budget plan expands government and raises taxes on the rich and small businesses at a time when the country is mired in a deep recession. Obama, for his part, is trying to keep fiscally-conservative Democrats on board.

 

Democrats, who control Congress, are looking for ways to shave some of the spending requests in a bid to persuade enough fiscally-moderate members of their party to support a $3.55 trillion budget next year.

 

“I’m hopeful we can have a majority of the House and Senate support” a budget plan, said a cautious-sounding House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

 

Democrats, said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, want to “put the middle class first and bring the country out of the recession.”

 

To do that, Murray told reporters, Congress must invest more in education, healthcare and alternative energy to create jobs, while shoring up domestic programs that she said were largely ignored in the eight years of the Bush administration.

 

“Now is not the time to sit back and criticize,” Murray said in a open warning to Republicans.

Read the rest:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/id
USTRE52G3OX20090324?feedType=RSS&feedN
ame=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Why Singapore is another model for teaching excellence

March 24, 2009

Steven Paine had an aha moment while visiting Singapore last spring. The superintendent of West Virginia’s schools was there with other education leaders to see what makes schooling in the city-state so successful, particularly in math and science.

By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

When he asked a Singapore official about the basis of their math curriculum, she cited a standards framework put out by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics – in the United States. West Virginia’s curriculum takes guidance from the same source, Mr. Paine says. “So the question remains, why is it that they lead the world in student achievement? I think it’s because of their teacher quality,” he says.

Only the top third of secondary-school graduates in Singapore can apply for teacher training. The National Institute of Education winnows that field down more and pays a living stipend while they learn to teach. Each year, teachers take an additional 100 hours of paid professional development. And they spend substantial time outside the classroom to plan with colleagues.

Not only is teaching an honored profession in Singapore, but it’s also paid as well as science and engineering careers, according to a report by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and Pearson, the groups that organized the Singapore conference for representatives from 13 nations.

“What I really came away with was that we need to invest in a structure to support high-quality teaching,” Paine says. “In West Virginia, we’re calling that ‘building the back porch’ – that place where teachers can come together and discuss innovative ideas … [and] engage in research-based professional development.” He’s seen a number of low-performing schools improve after a concerted effort along these lines.

A similar gathering will bring state school officers to Finland this fall, to “triangulate … [and ask,] What can we learn that’s similar from these two high-performing countries?” says Scott Montgomery, deputy executive director of CCSSO in Washington. “We can’t control every aspect of the system the way they can in Singapore…. [But] at the state level, a lot of our members were saying, we can control university preparation programs [and] some licensure systems.”

Read the rest:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/
0324/p12s01-ussc.html

Republicans Must Hang Together, or One By One

March 23, 2009

“We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Didn’t Ben Franklin say that in the dawning days of our nation?  Back then, the King of England could really use the noose.

Today, the Republicans in congress might need some reminders that they’ll still die election deaths if they keep going down the road they are on.

Last week’s vote in the House to impose a 90% tax on those getting AIG bonus money is a good example of Republicans failing to vote against a brainless but popular idea of the majority — and miss an opportunity to explain why the majority might be making bad law.

Eighty five Republicans joined the “public outrage” instead of engaging their brains and asking, “What should principled Republicans suggest?”

Hint: we are against taxes.  Especially confiscatory taxes: no matter how bad a guy we are chasing.  And we are against making laws, especially tax laws, to punish.  And we think the House should stay millions of miles from any legislation that even might be unconstitutional.

Last week there were lots of tagets beside AIG employees: Senator Dodd, among them.

You dogs chased the wrong car.  You joined ACORN in vilifying AIG employees who had signs reading “Capitalism is organized crime.”

And Republicans in the House, you added your names to a witch hunt that was border-line lawlessness.


ACORN activists at the homes of AIG executives on Saturday

Arch liberal Bush hater Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was on the conservative Fox News Channel awhile back to say, “Our country is being looted.”

If he can get this: so can all Republicans.

This is time for Republicans to stand united or die trying.  And for some that are on the fence like Maine’s Snowe and Collins and Arlen Specter of the Keystone state: we say adieu or seppuku.

Looks like Specter will leave the GOP anyway….

Health care?  Good luck: but try to stand united. If we can’t afford it, maybe we can’t afford it.  But make your care.

Schools should be federalized and the White House is writing the legislation?  No brainer.  Money has rarely made schools better but has often enriched bad teachers and entrenched unions.

Spending at the rate of $1 billion an hour?  Unsustainable generational theft.  Even China is worried.

Energy: are you with Al Gore or against him?

Foreign policy?  Do you believe Iran, China, North Korea and the Taliban will play nice?  Sending videos will do, do you think?

Terrorism: a word Obama has removed from the lexicon, is still maybe a threat?  What say you?

What happened to drill, baby, drill?  Too hot to even discuss now?  We shall ignore all our natural resources and be the wind powered nation?  When? At what cost and when will the grid be ready?

Corruption: Republicans want an end of corruption and total truth and honesty in government.  Right?  Pass a new Dodd Law that prohibits his kind of conduct.  Better yet: pass a law punishing those that don’t even read legislative proposals and then vote for them.

Time to ressurect the Newt style contract with what’s remaining of America before it is too late guys and gals….

DO NOT allow Rahm Emanuel to define you.  You are not Rush and maybe you are not Steele.  Abortion still matters?

Time to unite.

Or hang one by one.

********************

Politico Defines Republicans

Watching the various spats among conservatives, it’s difficult to tell whether one is witnessing a series of lively political disagreements or an episode of “Monday Night Raw.” 

In one corner, there’s former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum versus talk radio king Rush Limbaugh. In another ring, Limbaugh is taking on former House speaker-turned-conservative guru Newt Gingrich. And in the Royal Rumble, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is battling, well, pretty much everybody in the GOP

Liberals have shown no small measure of delight in this fracas, and understandably so. Taking political advantage of conservative fratricide makes perfect sense, as it’s the strategic execution of Henry Kissinger’s observation about the Iran-Iraq War: “It’s a pity both sides can’t lose.” Fueling the intra-party fire weakens the GOP from within. Even the White House has gotten in on the act with senior figures like spokesperson Robert Gibbs and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel launching attacks on administration critics ranging from Limbaugh to CNBC personalities Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer

But as liberals engage in multiple rounds of schadenfreude over conservative wrangling, what’s noticeable is that the burgeoning civil war we’re witnessing on the right could not play out on the left, at least not rise to the level of gravity that would attract front-page articles in Newsweek or the instigation of partisans on the other side. And that’s because liberals — unlike conservatives — do not have a “movement” over which to fight. 

Given the Barack Obama phenomenon, the rise of the liberal blogosphere and overwhelming Democratic congressional majorities, the proposition that liberals lack a movement might sound strange. But while the Republican Party comprises three steadfast pillars (free marketers, defense hawks and the religious right), the Democratic Party remains a coalition of a vast and diverse assemblage of interest groups (minorities, labor unions, academics, trial lawyers, etc.) rather than an ideological enterprise. As such, the Democrats, up until very recently, have long had more intense internal squabbling than the Republicans, whose various factions learned to reconcile. 

The conservative movement began to take form in the 1950s as a reaction to the then-regnant statist consensus. It was firmly anti-communist, opposed the New Deal and the further expansion of government programs, and later launched a harsh critique on many of the social changes that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. What further distinguishes the conservative movement from the liberal coalition is that conservatives built an array of institutions to sustain their ideological apparatus. In Washington and across the country, there exists a constellation of think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. In the 1980s, conservatives took to the airwaves and now attract tens of millions of listeners every day on talk radio. Perhaps the most important feature of the movement was its recruitment of young people through organizations like Young America’s Foundation, which identifies and trains conservative students on campuses across the country. 

To see the vitality — if not reasonableness — of the movement, one only had to visit last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual ritual that attracts conservative activists, politicians and celebrities from across the country. There is no liberal equivalent of this confab. Indeed, the relative influence of the conservative movement on the GOP versus any liberal parallel on the Democratic Party can be seen in the vast number of Republican politicians who proudly call themselves “conservative.” By contrast, few Democrats publicly identify themselves as “liberal,” opting for the more vague and voguish “progressive,” if at all.

Liberals are belatedly constructing themselves a movement akin to the one crafted by their ideological adversaries. In 2003, John Podesta founded the Center for American Progress, a partisan think tank explicitly modeled on Heritage. Media Matters aggressively attacks any perceived anti-liberal media bias in the same way that conservative watchdog groups have been monitoring the mainstream press since the 1980s. POLITICO’s Ben Smith has reported on the daily conference call in which the heads of more than 20 major liberal interest groups participate to shape a coherent message for the day, as well as Unity ’09, a coalition of groups ranging from MoveOn.org to the American Civil Liberties Union “aimed at helping President Obama push his agenda through Congress.” Never before have the disparate organizations of the American left been so well-coordinated.

Does the nascent liberal movement portend good or ill? Judging that question depends in part upon whether or not one agrees with the agenda. If scaling back American commitments overseas, increasing the power of unions, and building a more left-leaning Supreme Court, among other goals, of course, are your thing, then the means by which these ends are achieved will presumably matter less than their attainment.

But the answer also lies in whether or not movement politics is itself a healthy feature of the American electoral system. There is something ironic in the tendency of liberals to denounce the staleness and conformity of the conservative movement and relish in its apparent demise while constructing something of their own that is just as ideologically rigid.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.

 See Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/23/a
-question-for-the-85-cya-on-aig-house-rep
ublicans/

****************

Obama Spending, Tax Plans Likely Out The Window As CBO Predicts Much More Debt

March 20, 2009

President Barack Obama‘s budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama’s budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama’s policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama’s budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

Barack Obama
Getty Images

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/a
p_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

“Look Beyond the Smoke Screen”
Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/2
0/look-beyond-the-bogus-bonus-smokescreen/

Bush Defiecit not nearly this large: Related:
http://liberaledu.wordpress.com/2009/03/20
/first-signs-that-obama-economy-is-dangerou
sly-close-to-sinking-the-us/

President, Congress Preach More Spending While Kitchen Table Voters Try To Save Responsibly

March 20, 2009

The clear message from this president and this congress is that we can spend our way out of the recession.

The president, a master campaigner, has also volunteered to be a master spender on health care, the environment, education, energy and more.

He has already just about guaranteed that the congress — a pack of spending campaigners — will assist him as enablers.

Just as congress assisted Mr. Obama on the stimulus.

So the president is asking for campaign-style signature pledges from voters to support his spending ideas.  That’s why he went to California.  The Jay Leno fiasco was unnecessary entirely  — and off message entirely.

The president is intent upon showing that the future of America is all about what we spend now.

The message from Washington is spending: even as the voter at home is seeking fiscal responsibility for every member of the family.

And the president  even wants those at home to spend more at WalMart and Target to help the economy along.

He’s urging fiscal irresponsibility upon voters and congress.

But this is counter-intuitive to a voter who lost a job and faces forclosure or other economic calamity.

Around the kitchen table, voters are trying to figure out how to limit their spending.

And the prsident who talked so mush about crisis and catastrophe is now saying the economy is not so bad and we should have confidence.

Too late.

US President Barack Obama, seen here on January 29, 2009, sits ... 
US President Barack Obama, seen here on January 29, 2009, sits alongside Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

Confidence is draining from the American voter faster that the president can patch the leaks.  Going after the AIG bonuses is understandable and right; but that is only a slight drip and not even a trickle.

The deluge in spending from the stimulus and the omnibus: to the tune of $1 billion per hour in this president’s first 50 days, is staggering, along with the interest payments and national debt.

But it isn’t  deluge of water.  It is a deluge of money and confidence and political capital: the lifeblood of a president.

And Obama’s cohorts in all this excite no confidence at all: Geithner, Pelosi, Dodd, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest.

Related:
President’s Economic Team in Trouble: Especially Geithner

 Teachers Ask Pelosi, Dodd For Teaching on “American Values, Truth, Honesty, Competence”

World Gasps In Horror as U.S. Stumbles, Fumbles Over $165 Million

Barack Academy Announces Plan for “American Values, Truth, Honesty, Competence”

March 20, 2009

President Obama has already made this the “Education Presidency,” by offering a complete overhaul of the educations system in the United States.

Unlike the stimulus and health care plans he has proposed, which he left to the thoughtful Nancy Pelosi for the legislative drafting, the new education proposal will be created by Himself and the White House which is not at all challenged by the task.

And now an important new teachers’ union has come forward to assist Rahm Emanuel and the others in the White House team to create the new educations system.

“Patriotic Americans for Sensible Intelligence” (PATSI) president Susan Malarky has come forward to say, “To make sure this is a lot better than the special olympics type bill created by congress, we’ve dedicated ourselves to helping the White House.”

“Besides, without a lot of input from the teachers, the money the president proposes to spend might not all end up with union teachers where it belongs.”

PATSI also has asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chistopher Dodd to start the project to write the next generation of student textbooks.

PATSI says Dodd and Pelosi will lead a team which will write the text on “American Values, Law, Truth and Honesty.”

Vice President Joe Biden said, “Give me a f *&$%# ing break.”

Keep your sense of humor!

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/
28/introducing-barack-obama-academy/

Related:
Forget ACORN, Obama’s Americorps Has “strong odor of creepy authoritarianism”

Why Singapore is another model for teaching excellence

 Obama: Really Wants to “Fix Schools”? Try The China Or Singapore Model

Thowing Money Around Isn’t Always the Cure

Obama the centrist, pragmatic problem-solver is gone: now liberal spendathon, no accountability

March 19, 2009

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda…. support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks …. Where did my old Bro Go?

Now we have a liberal president, a teflon president, a telegenic president and a telepromter president.

And we are about to have a confiscatory 90 percent tax president and congress.

Never mind that the AIG bonuses were legal, protected by the “stimulus” written by this congress and signed by this president.  Ooops.  We goofed so you’ll pay.  The consequences are all yours: please excuse the president, congress, Treasury and Fed…..

A bait and switch president….

Welcome to the New America.

News at eleven followed by Jay Leno and Barack on the National Barack Channel….

Obama, Pelosi: Anything to Win

Obama, Congress, Treasury, Fed: Shameful Mismanagement of Your Money, Recovery

 Did Obama White House Fuel AIG Bonus Mess To Enact Tougher Rules With Public Support, “Outrage”?

Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy “from thin air”

******************

By Byron York
The Examiner

In September 2008, during the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, McCain said his Democratic opponent had “the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate — it’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.”

The “most liberal” critique was a staple of Republican talking points. And it had some basis in fact: A survey by the nonpartisan National Journal found Obama’s record in 2007, the year he began running for president, “the most liberal in the Senate.”

Obama rejected the charge.  “This is all old politics,” he said in February 2008. “Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving the problems that the American people want us to solve.”

From that, the image of Obama as a centrist, pragmatic problem-solver was born. It was an image that would last through the campaign, and through the election, and all the way until Inauguration Day.

But now, after nearly two months of the Obama administration, more and more voters are wondering: Is the Barack Obama they voted for the same Barack Obama who now occupies the Oval Office?

Early signs — Obama’s support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks — suggest that Obama does, in fact, fit into those “old categories” he once rejected.

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda. If he continues to walk that path, the question will become why anyone ever believed he would do otherwise.

Well, for one, he was a great candidate, and McCain was not. Beyond that, though, Obama was what political strategists call an “aspirational candidate.” He represented something that voters aspired to be: Part of an America that was good enough, and far enough removed from its racial past, to elect a strong candidate who was also an African-American.

The feeling touched liberals and conservatives alike. On the right, conservatives who opposed Obama still expressed happiness that he was a serious contender.  A few went beyond that, giving rise to the much-discussed “Obamacon” phenomenon.

“Having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will surely understand that traditional-left politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves,” wrote Christopher Buckley, son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, when he endorsed Obama in October.

Just a few weeks of the Obama administration caused Buckley to wonder if he had judged Obama correctly. Another admirer, the New York Times columnist David Brooks, wrote this month of having been forced “to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

They’re not alone. Right now, Americans who feel a creeping sense of buyer’s remorse about Obama are still in the minority; his job approval rating is still high, and his personal approval rating is higher.

But Obama knows what might come. Back in early 2008, when he found himself in trouble over his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama said plaintively, “I may not know him as well as I thought.” Now, Obama’s fear is that voters might be thinking the same thing.

Related:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/
03/19/first-they-came-for-aig-bonuses/