Michelle Malkin » The state of Obama’s dis-union

The state of Obama’s dis-union

By Michelle Malkin • January 27, 2010 09:49 AM

My syndicated column today torches President Obama’s fiscal freeze follies. A new CBO reports says the year-old Porkulus will now cost $75 billion more than originally estimated. Which is why the White House is scrambling to de-emphasize its spending discipline pose and talk about something else. Anything else. Like new legislation “restricting foreign corporations from getting involved in federal election.” More money for schools. Bio-terrorism. The teleprompter will roll and Obama will try and muster up a “new tone.” But no matter how many times he recites his rote promise to “fight for you,” it’s obvious Obama has lost his “swagga.” He’s only one year into his tenure and already musing openly and repeatedly about being a one-term president — a rhetorical crutch that’s even annoying his ideological bedfellows on the Left. What should the GOP do? Many think he deserves praise for paying cynical lip service to cutting spending and reducing the size of government. As I note in the column below, I’m in the “bury” camp.

***

The Spender-in-Chief’s fiscal freeze follies
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There are more loopholes in President Obama’s proposed “spending freeze” than in an Olympic volleyball net. Gargantuan government entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are exempt. A half-trillion in unspent stimulus money is exempt. Foreign aid is exempt. The Democrats’ proposed $154 billion jobs bill (Stimulus II) is exempt.

Pet federal education programs will be exempt (including $4 billion for the White House “Race to the Top” standards initiative and an additional $1.35 billion he just requested in the 2011 budget). Green jobs spending will be exempt (Obama proposed $10 billion in new clean energy spending earlier this month). Electorally-driven tax credit expansions will be exempt. The health care takeover plan is not included. As even the New York Times reported, the “estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.”

Which amounts to a molecule in a drop of the ocean of red ink in which American taxpayers have been drowning.

The current Spender-in-Chief unveiled details of this lofty new work of political fiction on Monday with more fanfare than a new Twilight title. It was supposed to be the centerpiece of the State of the Union address. But by Tuesday morning, President Obama’s illusion of fiscal discipline had been shredded left, right, and center. By Tuesday afternoon, irritated White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was already downplaying the gimmickry. It’s just something Obama will “mention,” Gibbs bristled.

After campaign videos of Obama repeatedly deriding “hatchet”-wielding spending freezes spread like Kudzu across the Internet, official White House blogger Jared Bernstein tried to control the widespread hypocrisy charges:

“During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 – the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze. The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It’s not what we’re proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down. That’s a big difference from a hatchet.”

…President Obama deeply understands the various imperatives of this moment in time, even if they don’t always point in the same direction.

So, he had a hatchet on Monday when he wanted headlines praising his return to austerity in the wake of the GOP’s Massachusetts Senate victory; a scalpel on Tuesday when he needed to mollify the big government Left. What will he wield at the State of the Union address on Wednesday night? A variable-speed Dremel rotary tool?

Some conservative Beltway analysts are cheering Obama’s fiscal freeze follies as a step in the right direction, a rhetorical victory, and a “good start.” Pardon me for not joining in the standing ovation for the latest performance of White House Kabuki theater. Praising the president for carrying on the charade of budget reform because a few piddly cuts are real is like complimenting the Naked Emperor’s fingernails: So, he didn’t have any clothes. At least his cuticles were real. It’s a start!

Moreover, who believes this freeze will last for the entire, cynically-timed three-year period that the White House announced less than 72 hours ago? McDonald’s French Fries have a longer shelf life than Obama’s pledges of fiscal accountability. All it’ll take is one more bad jobs report, one Chicken Little Congress-induced panic, to drop the budget restrictions faster than reality dad Jon Gosselin’s ex-girlfriends.

One year after riding into town on a wave of adulation and ambition, Obama has lost his “swagga.” His pre-State of the Union appearances have been listless and perfunctory. His dependence on a teleprompter – even for a standard, 6-minute stump statement at an elementary school — is now the butt of universal mockery. And his political machine has been forced to lay down enough fake Astroturf support to cover a football field. This is the time to nail the phonies in the White House, not to beg for meetings in hopes of bipartisan problem-solving. There’s little triumph in Obama’s empty “concessions” on the need to cut spending. They are fueled not by sincere commitment to reining in Washington’s appetites, but by craven political self-preservation. The president has lately regressed into his “I will fight for you” campaign sloganeering — by which, of course, he means, “I will fight for me.” There will be no hands reaching across the aisle. Obama’s too busy using them to point fingers at everyone else for his own political meltdown.

Posted in: Barack Obama,Politics,fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (103)

trackbacks (10)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On January 27th, 2010 at 7:17 pm, Southpaw said:

Based on the mood of the country (ugly), this isn’t going to be a SOTU speech, it’s going to be a PITW speech.
(Pissing-In-The-Wind)
#102

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:12 pm, tiredofit08 said:

this is all you’ll be seeing tonight….

http://www.psbandit.com/obama_doll.jpg
#103

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:15 pm, Hulka said:

ZZ:

Think back to all the hyperventilating that went into cancelling the Jet that was not used in Iraq or Afghanistan, (the name of the Jet escapes me at this point).

That would be the F-22, the most advanced fighter the world has ever seen. Decades ahead of the Russians and Chinese. Wonderful Jet.

As to your reference to Afghanistan and the F-22, as that is all you seem to recall about the jet (not even the name), no, it was not used there, nor should it have been.

We have other assets designed for that role (CAS). The F-22 is an Air Dominance fighter.

It is 5th Generation and will dominate the airspace if we encounter a peer or near-peer adversary. That is its primary role.

I caution, do not get stuck in the-war-we-fight-today-will-be-the-war-we-fight-tomorrow mind-set. The military is always being accused of this when in fact, that accusation could not be further from the truth.

It takes decades to conceive, design, develop, manufacture and field a fighter. It is not something we could do over-night. The time to find that out is not when you have American troops being killed by adversary aircraft, aircraft that were designed and built while the US sat by and flew 4th generation (or 4.5 generation) F-15′s well into their 3rd decade of combat service.

The Air Force had to make a choice, the JSF (F-35) or the F-22, and the JSF seemed to be the answer because it is multi-mission rather than single mission. The JSF is also 5th generation AND costs nearly as much as the F-22, and will likely cost the same as we move beyond OTD&E and LRIP.

Just so you know the facts.
#104

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:22 pm, tbear44 said:

I think I will have to pass on the TOTUS SOTU.
#105

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:36 pm, jamesgreenidge said:

Yes, as a technology driver, NASA was one of best investments this country’s ever committed to! In fact such research and exploration has its grass roots back to the founding Fathers; The Lewis & Clark Expedition was Thomas Jefferson’s equivalent of Project Apollo, and he’d no idea what wonders that’d reap! Myself I’m so TIRED of hearing the ignorant anti-NASA crowd! In the late 1960s the libs and ghettos were all crying “Stop the space program so we can spend to build paradise on Earth!!” Well, we haven’t been to the moon for almost fifty years now. See any entitleme– er, “paradises” anywhere??

James Greenidge
Queens NY
#106

On January 27th, 2010 at 9:56 pm, Member-VRWC said:

To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t.

OK, let’s review:

1. Obamacare — doesn’t support job growth
2. Cap & Trade — doesn’t support job growth
3. Amnesty for illegals — doesn’t support job growth

Start dialing down, BO. IOW, time to stick a fork in ya. You’re done.
#107

On January 27th, 2010 at 10:23 pm, graysonret said:

Getting in my car at 10pm (after work) I switched on the radio and heard Obama’s speech on. Off went the radio. I drove for a couple of miles and decided, what the heck, to turn it on and hear some of what Obama had to say. First sentence heard was “All of us here love our country”. Bam! Off went the radio. After a long day at work, I didn’t need a fiction story. I switched to the traffic report station.
#109

On January 28th, 2010 at 12:58 pm, zyzzyg said:

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:15 pm, Hulka said: #103

Just so you know the facts.

Notwithstanding all the facts you presented, I am not challenging them. The point was that it was difficult to cut.

Programs have their advocates and present what is wonderful about them. Opponents present what is terrible about them. That is alawys going to happen. Whose ox gets gored? That is my rice bowl. Etc. What is far more rare is that the program is eventually cut. And, to get there is difficult.
#111

On January 29th, 2010 at 2:50 pm, jamesgreenidge said:

OT Alert

On January 27th, 2010 at 8:15 pm, Hulka said:
It takes decades to conceive, design, develop, manufacture and field a fighter.. The time to find that out is not when you have American troops being killed by adversary aircraft, aircraft that were designed and built while the US sat by and flew 4th generation (or 4.5 generation) F-15’s well into their 3rd decade of combat service.

From a read long ago: Did you read a “Flight of The Cheetah (sp?)” by Dale Brown about an F-15 souped up to be a 5th generation plus fighter? An interesting concept!

James Greenidge
Queens NY