Obama Is Increasingly Irrelevant to the Debt Ceiling Process

July 27, 2011 RSS Feed Print

As Congress engages in another round of "beat the clock"—this time over raising the nation's debt ceiling to meet current obligations—one thing has, as the president might say, become "clear." Barack Obama has become increasingly irrelevant to the process.

When word came on Monday that the president had asked for time on television to address the nation, I, like millions of other Americans, assumed he would use the occasion to make news. Presidents request air time to announce what they intend to do about Soviet-installed missiles in Cuba, that they would be sending up major civil rights legislation, that they would be making the first presidential visit to China, or that American Navy SEALs had eliminated Osama bin Laden. Some of us even expected a much wanted and most anticipated budget deal. As has so often proved the case with Obama, such was not to be.

[See a collection of political cartoons about the budget and deficit.]

Instead, president used the free air time to do one of two things he does best. He campaigned. He urged his supporters to clog up the telephones and e-mail systems in Congressional offices. As has become his wont, he left unclear precisely what message he wanted them to deliver—other that they were there and did not like Republicans. As he has on so much else, healthcare, the stimulus package, and even the "lead from behind" Libyan adventure, Obama exuded the mien of someone who announces winners of the Academy Awards, rather than as one who decided the outcome.  Perhaps to show that their boss was indeed "working" the debt ceiling issue, White House aides leaked that the president was so engaged in the budget talks that he took time away from the other thing at which he excels, fundraising. Listeners were expected to sympathize with the cash collector-in-chief for having foregone a D.C. fundraiser. (Presumably, the money rolled in just the same, perhaps with the president telling well-heeled donors by telephone or by Skype how much he regretted not being able to make the 10 minute limousine drive.)

The president's performance came after three previous attempts to appear part of a process from which he had long been absent. There was the press conference in which Obama chastised Congress for not getting its homework in on time in the fashion of his young daughters. Then came the admonition to "eat our peas" and "pull off the band aid."  Last Friday came the all but Nixonian press conference in which Obama twice whined about not getting his calls returned (from House Speaker John Boehner) and for having been stood up at the altar on more than one occasion. (The late former president would have especially liked the manner in which Obama denied that the perceived slights he saw fit to bring up bothered him. No Newt Gingrich upset at having had to exit the back of the plane is he.)

The president's choice of words were particularly odd, given that the stated intention of his "public" presentations was to persuade his opposition to go along with him. Obama's public protestations did, however, help him attain a goal that he may consider more important, demonstrating to himself at least—and to his remaining acolytes—that he is indeed the smartest person in the room. If only his negotiating partners were as worthy. [See a collection of political cartoons on President Obama.]

One clearly is. During the 1990s, the last time Congress and the president were at loggerheads over spending levels and budgets, one of John Boehner's colleagues described him as the steadiest person throughout the process. (Boehner's buddy went so far as to call the future speaker the "only adult" in the then House GOP leadership.)

Boehner has remained every bit as calm and as steady throughout the current negotiations. Rather than seek to gloss over internecine party differences, Boehner chose to give other players on his team a say—in public as well as in private. (Democratic divisions, long simmering, burst into the open on websites and on MSNBC.) Boehner, unlike Obama, then advanced a program of his own. It has become the plan against which the Senate will shape its own and to which the other chamber has to respond. Not bad for someone who, as he said, heads only one of the three entities that must agree on a budget: the House, the Senate, and the president.

So as Senators and Congressmen negotiate across the Capitol, with the administration trying to elbow its way in, the nation will meet its obligations. And Obama will sign whatever he is presented, lest he be held to account for the havoc that would otherwise ensue.  (Count on him to ignore last minute pleas from the nation and MSNBC that he act on his own, citing out of context language of the 14th amendment.)

After the dust has settled, the one constant that will remain is the mounting unemployment rate to which Obama has also paid scant attention and offered no program. At its last count, the number stood at 9.2 percent. Mindful of their own reelection prospects, Congressmen and Senators will be in no hurry to assume joint custody of it with him. While he may not have "broken it" (at least all by himself), he has come to own it.

Tags:
deficit and national debt,
John Boehner,
Congress,
Barack Obama,
politics,
2012 presidential election,
debt

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The M.O. seems to be the same throughout. Appeal to the base, enlarge the base (at any cost to the taxpayer), engage in pitting American against American, tax, spend, buy every vote possible with taxpayer money or large donations from the wealthy who want to curry your favor just in case you remain in power and wish to punish those who didn't buy your favor. All reminiscent of any South American dictator. Obama is the worst ever, even worse than Jimmy Carter of the double-digit inflation and interest rate fame. The man has a one-track mind. Taxes, taxes and more taxes. Regulation, regulation and more regulation. If it all kills off business and industry, so be it. Then the state can own everything and us with it. I'm sure we'd be just as successful as the old Soviet empire, eh?

Steve in Philly of PA 6:37AM July 28, 2011

Senator barry’s involvement:

“The 2005 Energy Policy Act was one of the friendliest ever with over $10 billion in handouts. It lets oil giants pay federal royalties in barrels of oil and grants exemptions on some wells, subsidizes a new R & D program for ultra deep water drilling and unconventional oil and gas development, creates hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax breaks, increases what oil and gas companies can deduct on pipeline expenses, provides more liability protection besides the $75 million cap (established by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act after the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, an amount too small to matter)."

“As an Illinois senator, six months into his term, Obama supported it, an early clue to where he stood, and how he hoped to gain - the usual "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" payoff.”

“It worked hugely with BP, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) reporting that its employees and political action committees gave more to him than to any other federal candidate in the past 20 years.”

“During his 2008 campaign, CRP reported that the oil and gas industry overall gave him $884,000, more than any to other lawmaker except John McCain, and no wonder. His Senate voting record showed what they bought:"

“the right of mining companies to strip mine everywhere, including on government lands; Vast new powers and handouts to the nuclear industry; harmful biofuels production;

lax regulation; and other pro-business, anti-populist measures - besides supporting the 2005 Energy Policy Act."

“Obama promised change, and delivered betrayal - evident now in the Gulf, America's greatest ever environmental disaster, fast becoming the most catastrophic in history, a shameless addition to his resume, already revealing a world class rogue and failed president less than a year and half into office. No wonder calls for his impeachment have begun, including by James Petras on May 27, on the Progressive Radio News Hour, hosted by this writer who wholeheartedly agrees.”

Don’t forget barry’s waver to worst polluter in Gulf, Who else, barry’s buddy, BP. There is more, enjoy reading link...

http://warisacrime.org/node/52692

Bill Hedges of MO 2:46AM July 28, 2011

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

__ tax cuts for rich paid for theslves plus tax cut for non-rich too...

___

“The tax cuts of the 1920s”

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent."

_____

“The Kennedy tax cuts”

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

_____

“The Reagan tax cuts”

“Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

_____

“Harmful Spending & Complexity”

“Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.”

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

Bill Hedges of MO 2:37AM July 28, 2011

Alvin Felzenberg

Alvin Felzenberg

Alvin Felzenberg was the spokesman for the 9-11 Commission. A veteran of two presidential administrations, he lectures at Yale University. He is also affiliated with the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, the George Washington University, and Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book is The Leaders We Deserved and a Few We Didn't: Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement