Obama's Failing Grade by Tim Siggia

Obama's Failing Grade

By Tim Siggia

March 16, 2009

"Comparing congressional spending to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors." -- Ronald Reagan

President Barack Obama may still be the darling of the Fourth Estate and the American people overall, but chinks in his armor are beginning to show. According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the president continues to enjoy a 60-percent overall approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled, however, are not so generous in their assessment of the new administration's economic policies, giving Obama a grade of 59 out of 100, and his treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, an overall grade of 51. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernancke, a holdover from the Bush administration, scored slightly higher with an overall rating of 71.

This is news America should take seriously. As a group, economists are bottom-line people who tend not to be swayed by charm and charisma. What they look for is results -- and so far they're not liking what they see in the new administration. Massive government spending and tax increases on the horizon are not the stuff of which recoveries are traditionally made, in fact, history tells us quite the opposite. Yet it seems that in the face of all this Obama, and the Democrat Congress with him, are still hell-bent on implementing their agenda of socialism for the United States in the face of what history has told us again and again is the wrong prescription for prosperity.

Mr. Geithner in particular seems to be having a tough time not only selling his policies to frugal-minded economists, but in finding people who want to work for him. On March 12, H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, withdrew his name from consideration for the post of deputy treasury secretary, making himself the fourth treasury department nominee to do so. The others who refused high-level treasury positions include attorney Annette Nazareth, who was being considered for deputy secretary, former Clinton treasury official Lee Sachs for the post of undersecretary for domestic finance, and Caroline Atkinson, an International Monetary Fund official who was being considered for undersecretary for international affairs. That in a time of recession, when pink slips are proliferating all over America, nobody seems to want a job working for Timothy Geithner is a reflection not only on the man himself but on the president who appointed him. As it has been with Obama, and as with Bill Clinton before him, it seems once again a boy has been sent to do a man's job. Indeed, Geithner is only one of a profusion of abysmal cabinet picks made by Obama, and the lacking wisdom of his choices in that regard is only now beginning to make its presence known. Certainly more than one observer noted the irony of Geithner's dressing-down by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who, in so many words, called the administration's rosy economic forecast a lie. Judd, we will remember, was a former nominee for the post of commerce secretary after New Mexico governor Bill Richardson was forced to withdraw his name from consideration for that post upon revelation that he was under a federal investigation in his home state. Judd later withdrew his own name on the grounds that he believed himself unable to work with the new administration.

What all this is strongly suggesting is that in the face of all the media-generated pro-Obama hype, the proverbial bloom is off the rose, and the honeymoon is coming to an end. Skeptical observers are increasingly detecting a marked dichotomy between Obama's words and his policies. The man who promised America a new era of hope and change, while specifically defining neither, is putting forth an overall policy of same-old, same-old. The president who preached, and still preaches, fiscal responsibility, has proposed a record-breaking $6.3 trillion-dollar budget that dwarfs anything previous. The president who told a joint session of Congress, not just once but several times, that his budget would contain no earmarks, has sent forth a "stimulus package" and budget containing more pork than Omaha ever had room for, and approved an omnibus spending bill containing nearly 9,000 pork-barrel items, excusing himself on the grounds that it would be a one-time event. Understandably, there was no public ceremony when Obama signed this bill.

In fact, the case could be credibly made that the 49 economists who gave Obama an overall grade of 59 were perhaps a bit generous in their assessment of the New Messiah. The man who it seems many in this country would make king given their way has in fact shown an appalling lack of leadership in his first 50 days in office. He has allowed extremists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to dictate economic policy, putting forth proposals which serve more to promote their own agenda of socialism and big government than truly addressing the fiscal crisis at hand. He has made cabinet appointments that collectively make the Keystone Kops look like Scotland Yard. He has, in particular, appointed a secretary of state who acts more like the president than he does, and is in fact conducting her own brand of foreign policy despite the fact that she is the secretary of state, not the head of state.

But wait, some may say. What about the recent stock market rally?

It's a fair question, and not one to be ignored. In a three-day period there has in fact been a rally on Wall Street that shows a glimmer of hope in the face of all the negativity. Citigroup Corporation reported having its best quarter since 2007, and General Motors said on March 12 that it would not need the latest installment of government bailout money. Analysts caution, however, that this phenomenon could be short-lived. "We are going to remain cautious because the slightest bit of bad news could turn this thing around," said Joe Arnold, investment advisor at Dawson Wealth Management.

Naturally, Obama supporters will point to this as an indication that his economic policies are working, and better times are lying ahead. How long it will last, however, is not yet known. It is also too early to tell whether this phenomenon has occurred because of Obama's economic policies or in spite of them, or, in fact, if those policies had any bearing on it at all. The answers to these question will come only after a period of long-term analysis. It does not, however, change what historically has been so: that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity. This is exactly what Obama and the Democrat Congress are trying to do, and sooner or later the bill they're running up in our name will have to be paid by future generations.