Blog

Posts Tagged ‘President Bush’

The truth about Obama’s budget cuts

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

The White House today says tomorrow’s FY2011 budget is “proposing more than 120 terminations, reductions, and savings for approximately $20 billion in savings this year.” (I assume they mean next year, since this year’s budget is already enacted.)

To put that in perspective, that’s about the same number of programs the White House proposed cutting last year, and, as I wrote after they released last year’s budget, a significantly lower number than what President Bush proposed cutting every year of his second term.

Granted, the proposed savings — $20 billion — is a bit higher than what Bush ever proposed saving (and what Obama proposed last year), but since the White House has not yet broken out how much of that is mandatory (and almost impossible to cut) and how much is discretionary, it’s hard to put much weight in that number now.

The Obama White House is also touting the relative success they had achieving their proposed cuts last year compared to President Bush. But two observations are in order: First, President Bush proposed cutting significantly more programs (about 150 most years) than Obama, which skews the relative success rates. Second, in the early years of Bush’s administration, the deficit was small, so their was little pressure on Congress to deliver cuts. And, when the deficit started to grow in the later years, the Democrats took charge of Congress, and had little appetite for accepting Bush’s budget. Now, Obama’s party controls Congress and deficits are a pressing issue, so cuts should be easier.

The bottom line is that President Obama deserves credit for proposing some cuts, but some perspective is in order.

Remembering Iraq

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

I wrote a lot last spring and summer that President Obama apparently had forgotten the war in Afghanistan. But as Peter Wehner writes in Commentary, there is another, even more forgotten war: Iraq. Writes Wehner:

As attention has shifted east to Afghanistan, Iraq has become, in many respects, America’s forgotten war. Part of the reason for this is understandable; America’s involvement in the Iraq war is winding down while our involvement in Afghanistan is winding up. But I suspect that part of the reason has to do with the fact that we’ve made astonishing progress in Iraq over the last two years, and having done so, much of the political class has decided to cast its gaze elsewhere.

Wehner notes a stunning fact: “December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths.” Stunning because it’s remarkable how quickly violence has subsided; and stunning because – as far as I’ve noticed – the Obama Administration didn’t do anything special to highlight the milestone. (Just imagine what the previous administration would have done if such success was accomplished while President Bush was still in office.)

President Obama’s silence on Iraq is not surprising. After all, the mission there is succeeding in large part because of the surge policy that he inherited after initially opposing.

But just because it may be awkward for Obama to highlight the current success in Iraq, he’s making a mistake by publicly ignoring the war: If it does reach a satisfactory end (as Wehner predicts) it will be a victory for the West that could be used to prove our resolve. But, if Iraq slips back into chaos after the upcoming elections (a result I fear is more likely than generally recognized), then President Obama will have to re-engage in an effort that he’s let slip off the public’s radar.

Either way, the President is better off not letting Americans forget the war in Iraq.

Obama’s silence on terrorist attack

Saturday, December 26th, 2009

On World News Saturday night, Jake Tapper asked a question I had been wondering: Why has the President not made any statement (either on paper or camera) about the attempted terrorist attack aboard the Northwest flight landing in Detroit on Christmas.

Jake reported that the White House decided not to have the President make a statement because (a) they did not want to panic Americans and (b) they did not want to lend credibility to the threat and/or give satisfaction to the terrorist plotters. (His report is not posted online; I’m paraphrasing his report from memory & will update later.)

Both reasons strike me as either misguided or disingenuous. Regarding the former, Presidential statements that calmly explain facts and give guidance do not panic people — to the contrary, they stop the spread of fear-mongering rumors and misinformation. As for the latter, it’s pretty hard to downplay the threat while senior Administration officials are simultaneously telling reporters the opposite. And how the President taking a victory-lap after the terrorists were foiled would embolden the enemy is beyond me — if it would embolden anybody, it would be the American public, who should be encouraged to stay vigilant.

I’m sure there are some legitimate reasons for the President to not address the foiled attack; and, in fairness, President Bush did not make any statement after the similar, failed attack in December 2001. But I can’t shake the feeling that the White House’s silence was more about not highlighting that the President spent the day golfing in Hawaii than a particular national security strategy.

UPDATE (12/27): Marc Ambinder offers an insightful defense of the President’s silence, arguing that by not saying anything, the President is trying to signal calmness:

In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people, just as his advisers are convinced that the Bush administration projected their panic and anger on the self-same public eight years ago.

It’s a tough and novel approach — and not at all (as they say in Britain) party political — because the standard political script would have the president and his attorney general appearing everywhere as soon as possible.

Fair enough, but as I noted above, President Bush did not rush to TV cameras either after the 2001 shoe bomb attack.

Connect

Archives

Tags

ABC afghanistan AP Axelrod baseball budget campaign CBS chicago tribune cillizza clinton CNN communications Congress disaster economics eurobama europe flip-flop gaffes gibbs health care Huffington Post image Jon Stewart media mike allen Minnesota myths NBC new york times obama palin pandemic politico polls President Bush press conference Republicans Reuters roll-out tax cuts wall street journal washington post White House