Short-Changed

Let me begin this post with a paragraph or two that I meant to get around to posting on Inauguration Day - seriously, I did. That was a busy week for me; it was the week I took off work to sort through our old film pictures, and that took up the entire week, so I never got around to posting anything. But here's what I would have said on that historic day:

"Today, Barack Obama became President of the United States, and that makes him my President. As my President, he will have my support. I wish him success - and I mean that. Because we're at a critical point in our nation's history, particular in terms of our economic sovereignty, and the stakes are too high for me to wish otherwise. At the same time, I will be as critical of any mis-steps or misleadings as I was of President Bush, or President Clinton, or presidents past. That should not be construed as a lack of support for the President. It is my right as an American citizen, and I trust that President Obama, charged with upholding our Constitution, supports that right.

As I watched his swearing-in, and saw the throngs of crowds on the National Mall, I couldn't help but be caught up in not only the historical significance of finally breaking the race barrier for the highest office in our land - a long-overdue moment in America's history - but also in the euphoric excitement of ushering in fresh, new leadership to a seat of government that is in desperate need of it. President Obama campaigned on the powerful twin pillars of 'Hope' and 'Change.' And I am as hopeful as any American on this day that he is able to bring change to Washington."

Well, the early returns are in. And they're a mixed bag.

I like some of the things he's done. I'm fine with the idea of closing the detention center at Gitmo. I have concerns over what will be done with the detainees, but if closing the center helps make people feel better, okay. I trust that President Obama recognizes the strategic importance of the base to US security interests, however, and will not close the base altogether.

I like his business casual approach at the White House, being a pretty casual business guy myself. I understand why President Bush was so strict about jackets and ties in the Oval Office, and about meetings starting and ending on time. The White House - especially the Oval Office - had been stripped of all dignity by his predecessor, who used it as a taxpayer-funded Playboy Mansion, sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom to wealthy contributors, allowed his staff to trash it on the way out, then invited the media to his send-off at Andrews AFB in an attempt to upstage the new President.

If nothing else, President Bush restored dignity and grace to the office of the Presidency by not stealing everything in sight out of the White House and off Air Force One, by graciously welcoming the Obamas to the White House before the inauguration to show them around their new digs (though he should have shown Mr. Obama where the Oval Office door handle was), by not allowing the media to the send-off at Andrews, and by even turning to an Obama staffer after the newly sworn-in President blasted him in his inauguration speech and saying, "That was a heck of a speech!"

President Obama was thus able to enter the highest office in the land with the dignity and decorum it deserves. And now, it's his to shape as he will. Again, I like the business casual thing. I've always been a fan of loosening the ties, rolling up the sleeves, and getting to work.

I also liked his pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration - that is, until he hired a couple of them. That doesn't spell "change" to me, it spells "business as usual in Washington." Similarly, I liked his promise of transparency. He said that he would fully disclose what the administration was doing (unless, I assume, security interests would prevent doing so) to the American people. And he promised, on his "change.gov" transition website, to "not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days."

Well, a Bloomberg News report dated January 28 - barely a week after the inauguration - noted that the Treasury Department had not disclosed what securities it had backstopped in its efforts to prop up B of A and Citigroup. Granted, Bloomberg News had requested the information during the Bush Administration, and the request had been refused. For that, I hold the previous administration, and my old favorite target Hank Paulson, accountable. But President Obama promised change, in this instance in the form of transparency. And he and his Treasury Secretary have not delivered. Again, it's more of the same in Washington.

President Obama also signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, on January 29 - again, barely more than a week into his term. But, as noted on the website propublica.org, "the first chance Americans got to comment on it on the White House Web site was ... after the President had already signed it into law" - not five days before, as promised. Surely he's not suggesting that this was emergency legislation? And once again, I fully recognize that past Presidents, including Bush, have broken promises. But once again, President Obama promised change. Broken promises are just more of the same from Washington.

Then there are the cabinet appointments. Three of them have been tax cheats. Two have withdrawn their nominations - one immediately, and one only after coming under considerable fire. Tom Daschle withdrew, saying that he didn't believe he could effectively lead the Health and Human Services Department without the full support of Congress and the American people. President Obama at first supported Mr. Daschle, then said he did the right thing after Daschle chose to withdraw. Now, maybe that was actually a closed-door ploy where the rookie POTUS said to Daschle, "Look, Tom, I'm gonna publicly come out and say you just made an honest mistake, and that'll make me look like a stand-up guy, and will save you face. But in return, you gotta pull out and fall on your sword. Then I'll praise you for doing the right thing." If it was - that's business as usual in Washington.

If it wasn't, it was a rookie gaffe. In fact, Obama apologized for the nomination this week, saying he made a mistake in not vetting his nominees well enough. Well, for one thing, Daschle decided in July - right about the time that his friend Sen. Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination, right about the time Mr. Daschle could start counting on a plum Cabinet post - that maybe that car service he benefited from was taxable income. So he paid the back taxes then. That left plenty of time for the Obama team to vet the guy.

For another thing, how hard is it to vet a tax cheat anyway? Just hire an accountant to audit your nominees. And finally, if appointing Daschle was a mistake, then why wasn't appointing Tim Geithner? Geithner already had a government job; Daschle didn't anymore (he was a lobbyist, by the way). He should have been vetted all along the way. And unlike Daschle, Geithner waited until he actually was nominated to disclose his taxing problem, which makes his actions even smellier.

Appointing tax cheats to high public office is the pinnacle of audacity - pun intended - for a guy who said that anybody who didn't want to pay more in taxes was "unpatriotic."

As an aside, the rookie Treasury chief has made an early gaffe of his own, openly accusing China - in written testimony to Congress - of manipulating the yuan. So serious was his gaffe (after all, we need China to buy the record amounts of debt the US Treasury, headed by Mr. Geithner, will issue this year) that President Obama had to make a call to China to apologize for his Treasury Secretary's blunder.

It was reminiscent of then-newly appointed Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's loose-lipped comment to Maria Bartiromo at a White House press dinner regarding the future direction of monetary policy. The Money Honey reported his comment the following Monday, which moved the markets. Bernanke seemed honestly shocked that she would disclose an off-the-record comment, which is pretty naive - when a reporter has the inside skinny from the Fed Chair, especially after Alan Greenspan's years of convoluted double-speak, she's going to run with it. Ben was either too focused on Ms. Bartiromo's charms, or too caught up in the giddiness of having the attention of the press, to think about the need for discretion when it comes to Fed policy.

I questioned at the time whether he was ready to be Fed Chairman, and I have the same questions about Mr. Geithner's readiness to head the Treasury. I never did believe he was qualified, having been instrumental in Paulson's ill-conceived and poorly-executed bailouts and rescues. And I have the same questions now. At least Paulson only jaw-boned China to let the yuan float - he didn't come right out and accuse them of currency manipulation. And especially to insult a trading partner and investor as critical to the US as decorum-obsessed China ... well, you'd think a guy with degrees in Asian Studies, and who studied Chinese, would know better. Heck, I do, and I don't even know enough Chinese to order dim sum without getting the yucky stuff.

I will give President Obama props for admitting his mistake in appointing Mr. Daschle. I was as appalled as anyone when President Bush said, in a 2004 press conference, that he couldn't think of a mistake he'd made during his first term. Of course, that was an election year, and he was asked the question by a member of the very media that would have delivered any answer he gave to the Kerry camp as ad campaign fodder, but I was appalled nonetheless. Just as I was appalled when President Clinton infamously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," or when President Nixon said, "I am not a crook." But I'd like to be able to give President Obama even more props, as I would if he'd have admitted that the Geithner appointment was also a mistake.

Of course, he can't. He wants Tim on that wall, he NEEDS Tim on that wall (pardon the Gitmo reference). Or so he thinks. See, he wants Geithner's help in passing this porky pig of a spending bill. My advice to him would be to be careful what he wishes for - after all, Mr. Geithner "helped" craft the TARP.

And that brings me to the biggest rookie mistake of all: the spending proposal. Congress - or more accurately, Congressional Democrats - may have actually written the bill. But President Obama has been all too happy to call it "his." It is ill-conceived, full of pork, too big, misdirected - it's a fiasco. He has promised safeguards against misuse of the funds, but other than executive pay limits, the details of those safeguards have not been forthcoming.

President Obama has been sharply critical of the mis-handling of the TARP, and rightly so. He has blamed the Bush administration for not providing safeguards in the TARP. We've seen the consequences of that lack of provisions: banks aren't lending, Citi tried to buy a $50 million 12-seat corporate jet, AIG planned big boondoggles, only to scrap the plans after public outcry that pressured Washington to pressure them, Wells Fargo has since done the same ... and the beat goes on. Today we learned that the Treasury overpaid for bank assets purchased under the TARP, to the tune of $76 billion, or about 30% above fair value. (Let us not forget, once more, that Timothy Geithner was involved in the process.)

But you know what? Then-Sen. Obama and his then-running mate Sen. Biden voted for the TARP, with no strings attached and immunity for Hank Paulson. Why wasn't he pounding the table then, saying, "Let's slow down here - let's build some parameters into this plan to protect the taxpayer and make sure the TARP does what it's intended to do"?

And that's what scares me. Now, he's pushing for the same haste with the spending bill. He actually said, "We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the necessary." Translation: let's just hurry up and pass this thing, and if it's flawed, we'll work it out later. If he's in such a rush to get it passed, why does he care whether the Republicans are on board? He's got the votes he needs, so just take Larry the Cable Guy's advice and "Git 'r done!"

But the Democrats recognize that this thing has "fail" written all over it, and they don't want to be the only ones with the albatross hanging around their necks.

On February 5, President Obama took his case to the American people in a Washington Post op-ed piece. In it, he wrote:

"In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis - the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

President Obama, I, your humble constituent, offer the following observations:

1. All efforts to keep intoning the mantra of "the failed policies of the last eight years" notwithstanding, you really can knock it off now. George W. Bush is back in Texas, and you're the President. Act like it, please.

2. The "failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis include the New Deal, which you're attempting to revive like some Frankenstein's monster; the economically irresponsible theory that homeownership can be expanded beyond natural norms without catastrophic results; and that behemoths like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't need oversight. None of those theories can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration, though the latter two can certainly be blamed on people who are still in Congress, ever-ready to vote "yea" on your spending bill.

3. Regarding those "half-steps and piecemeal measures" of which you are now so critical, may I remind you that you voted for every one of them that came before the Senate? Where was your criticism then?

4. I will grant you that energy independence and the high cost of health care are indeed noble causes, and challenges we must address - just as soon as we have the money to do so. But what the heck do they have to do with economic stimulus? The current calamity is the result of a major asset bubble bursting, and that had nothing to do with energy independence or health care. If you want to fix this thing, come up with a plan to fix it. If you want to just let the economic chips fall where they may, and focus your attention on energy and health care, I'm your biggest fan - again, though, not until we have the money to throw at those issues.

5. I will further grant you that the American people did indeed vote resoundingly for change in November. However, a rush to judgment on a massive, pork-laden, deficit-worsening spending bill is not "change," particulary in the very choppy wake of the TARP.

President Obama has already had to do several embarrassing about-faces over provisions of the spending bill: spending millions on contraceptives, re-sodding the National Mall, etc. (Perhaps if his inauguration hadn't turned into the spectacle it had, the National Mall wouldn't need re-sodding. Millions of pairs of feet will tear up a lawn pretty darn quick.) Those about-faces bear some resemblance to those of Citi, AIG and Wells Fargo when they were faced with public outcry over reckless, wasteful spending of taxpayer largess.

And the public outcry over the spending bill should not be ignored. The American people, by and large, did not want the TARP. Then-Sen. Obama voted for it any way. The American people, by and large, do not want this spending bill, other than the obvious ones with the kool-aid mustaches (I'll get around to them in another post soon). So instead of standing on a perceived mandate to do whatever you want and using the Washington Post to tell the American people what you want to do, Mr. President, how about listening to what THEY want - for a "change"?

No, the early returns don't fill me with "hope." More like dread. I think the worst for me was when a news reporter was being asked by a colleague about his recent interview with the President. He said he asked the leader of the free world (for now, anyway) what surprised him the most about his new job. His answer:

"That every decision would be so big."

Well, I could have told you, Mr. President, that being POTUS would be very, very different from being a community organizer. That's why 46% of the American people didn't think you were up to the task: you'd never run a single thing in your young life.

On that topic, President Obama also recently said that he had sat down with "the people who really know what's going on in America." Who comprised this sage group?

The governors of America's states. Hmmmm ... Is Alaska still a state?