Obama is Moving the Goal Posts on Recovery

Remember the Democrats complaining that President Bush had supposedly moved the goalposts when the focus of the Iraq invasion 'switched' from weapons of mass destruction to countering an Axis of Evil regime and liberating the country? Supposedly. My rhetorical question is this; why wouldn't they bother to applies the same standard to President Obama, who has recently done some real re-definitions of his own?

And the second question, again rhetorical because we all know the real answer to both of these questions, is this; when Obama the candidate was promising change, was he really talking about regularly changing his positions to suit the situation of the day?

Talking on the effectiveness of his recent stimilus, the President recently said the following (excerpts from Bloomberg):

“It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession,” Obama, who is traveling today in Ghana, said in his weekly Saturday radio and Web address. “It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and business.”

Were it not for the stimulus program, the president said, “state deficits would be

nearly twice as large as they are now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs -- layoffs that would affect police officers, teachers, and firefighters.”

In asking for public patience, Obama said the recovery act “wasn’t designed to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall.”

Enacted in February, the bill “was designed to spur demand and get people spending again and cushion those who had borne the brunt of the crisis,” the president said.

Obama said the measure “was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years.”

In a Bloomberg interview last month, the president said he expected unemployment rates to exceed 10 percent.

Remember, we’re only 140 days into this deal,” Biden said in a speech in Cincinnati. “It’s supposed to take 18 months.”

The main points from the above:

 1) His stimulus has extended unemployment insurance (was that an objective?)

 2) It's delivered $43 billion of tax relief to working families

 3) It's saved states from laying off state government employees

 4) It wasn't designed to work in four months, it was designed to work in two years

 5) He now expects unemployment to exceed 10%

 6) Biden backed up the 2 year window for effectiveness

Let's compare and contrast that with the speech Obama made back on January 8th to pump up support for the very same stimulus effort.

January 8th, 2009

From Obama's speech.

That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jump start job creation and long-term growth.

...

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy - where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.

(1) He said immediately. That's not 2 years. He's moving the goalposts now by saying two years. The truth is they either don't know what they are doing and thought they could solve the problem in months not years OR they were lying about the stimulus bill in order to get their own way on it. It depends on what you believe but who would you rather have for a President - an economic illiterate, or a liar?

(2) It will add to the deficit in the short term? It turns out many of the fine print items for states require that they continue to keep new programs running beyond the deficit period. Whether it impacts the federal government beyond the the short term remains to be seen but it WILL impact state government deficits.

(3) Government alone cannot solve the problem, but only government can solve the short term problem. That reinforces the short term nature of the solution they were pushing.

Clearly the goal posts have been moved since January. The President has no issue with changing his talking points and his version of reality at the drop of a hat. The video clips for the next Presidential run should have a plethora of available flip flops or outright fabrications to use against a President for whom deceit and/or bad decisions have already become the order of the day.

Exit point - Keep an eye on this portion of the President's January speech;

That's why the overwhelming majority of the jobs created will be in the private sector, while our plan will save the public sector jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and others who provide vital services.

It sure sounds like the emphasis has already changed to focus on government jobs. Over time the dollar flow will bear that out.