They speak with forked tongues

It is always interesting to watch the small-government politicians and their small-government-no-taxes constituents scream for “guvmint” to provide money and clean up whatever catastrophe has recently happened. Many are now screaming for the Obama administration, including the military, to push BP aside and put a stop to the oil spill themselves (as if government has the expertise and the equipment to do so). Just a few months ago they were protesting “guvmint’s” interference in their lives as in “cut my taxes”, or “no taxes”, or “you shouldn’t make me buy health insurance” or “get off my back.”

Now they want mother government to take care of them – and for President Obama to go down there the moment the catastrophe happened to hold their hands and soothe their pain. It is interesting how the gulf-state conservatives' suddenly found respect for the powers and money of the federal government due to a catastrophe in their own backyard.

Case in point: Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a hardened foe of big government, posted an item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin," he wrote. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if federal and state officials would do the dirty work of protecting and cleaning up the coast instead of BP.

Then came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi – governed by conservatives who believe in low taxes and limited government even to the point of not providing for good schools, roads, bridges, etc – want the federal government to mobilize more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup (at taxpayer expense, of course). That followed an earlier request by the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, another limited government believer, who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration "to outline the state's needs" and to ask "for additional resources. These resources are critical."

“BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it,” said Governor Jindal, a constant critic of big government. He is blasting the White House for not doing enough to stem the oil flow in the Gulf! This is the same guy who decried the government doing volcano monitoring. It seems obvious that what is really going on here is political calculation. Jindal’s ambitions have always extended beyond the bayou: He was not shy about blasting Obama’s stimulus package as “irresponsible” while accepting a large amount of the money. He also positioned himself as a responsible Republican voice on healthcare — dismissing the House plan as “radical,” but urging Republicans not to abandon the process.

Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi also have asked for more federal help. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, flew over the gulf with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (FL). Sessions, probably the Senate's most ardent supporter of tort reform, extolled the virtues of litigation against BP.

"They're not limited in liability on damage, so if you have suffered damages, they are the responsible party," said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns. "We're here to send the message that we're going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they are made whole."

"They're not too big to fail," Sessions said. "If they can't pay and they've given it everything they've got, then they should cease to exist." If you believe that the federal government will not be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you would like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Congressman Thad Cochran of Mississippi, a far-right leaning Republican, says he is making sure “the federal government is doing all it can.” Another limited-government conservative, Senator Roger Wicker, also of Mississippi, says he will “make sure the federal government is poised to assist in every way necessary.” All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that British Petroleum (BP) would cover all the costs of the cleanup – apparently unaware that the Congress put a limit on oil company liability years ago.

"We're going to have the oil industry folks, the BP folks, in front of us on the Commerce Committee," Florida's LeMieux vowed in the news conference. "We're going to talk about these drilling issues." Oh, but not before the taxpayer sends some more big-government money down to the small-government believers of the Gulf coast area.

These conservatives speak with forked tongues. They tell their constituents how government should only exist for defense and should not provide for the welfare of the people and then turn around and ask the federal government to spend taxpayer’s money to clean op the oil mess. Yet, their regions already get about 30% more money from Washington than they send to Washington – receiving much more than their counterparts in Democratic states.

An analysis of data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation by Washington Post database specialist Dan Keating found that people in states that voted Republican were by far the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. In states that voted strongly Republican, people received an average of $1.50 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. In moderately Republican states, the amount was $1.19. In moderately Democratic states, people received on average of 99 cents in federal funds for each dollar they paid in taxes. In strongly Democratic states, people got back just 86 cents on the tax dollar.

Personally, I think we need big government, not just for defense, but to provide a safety net for all the people – and to be there when disasters happen. Although it is likely a temporary attitude, this ecological catastrophe has Gulf coast conservatives’ crying out for the aid and purse of the federal government – a timely reminder for all that government is necessary. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.

Oh yes, they have forked tongues, indeed.

The media wants it right now

President Obama has been in office for about two months. Yet for the past two weeks, much of the media has been suggesting that the Obama presidency is a failure because he didn't come into office, wave his wand, and cure all the problems that took Bush and the Republicans eight long years to build. The media wants everything fixed now. They want the economy to be fixed now. So, in trying to make news instead of just reporting news, they are saying things like: he is doing too much at once, he is not doing enough, he’s moving too fast, he’s moving too slowly, his staff is making too many errors, and on and on and on.

No matter what your personal opinion is of Obama, you have to admire his courage. He is doing what he thinks is right for this country, resetting its priorities for years to come, even if it means he only serves one term as president. He has said many times that if his policies do not work, he realizes that he will be voted out in 2012. Yet he moves ahead with what he sincerely believes is right for the country instead of what would be politically safe for him. It is rare that a politician would do this. I have heard him say more than once that he would rather be a good president for only four years than to be a politically-correct, mediocre president for eight years.

What the Washington political circles and the media do not understand is that what matters most to them is not the same thing as what matters most to average Americans. When it comes to judging Obama, the political and media groups are more interested in who seems to be winning or losing on a day-to-day or even a moment-by-moment basis. The pundits on Fox News, CNN, and other news programs are increasingly finding fault with Obama, although the public still likes him and believes in his policies. The average American takes a broader look at the man, focusing on whether he is really trying to make their lives better.

Obama seems well aware that even if the pundits are quickly growing disillusioned with him, the public is still taking a longer view. Last week he reminded the media that "there are no shortcuts to long-term economic growth, and we can't just keep on doing the same things we were doing before and somehow expect that all of our problems will be solved. We've been in office all of seven weeks so far. This is a crisis that was eight years in the making, maybe longer in certain aspects of it," he said. "…it’s going to take some time, and the truth of the matter is the American people, I think, understand that it's going to take some time. Keep in mind it's only been two weeks since I gave a joint session speech to Congress, the day after which everybody said, 'Boy, that was really clear.' ...The reviews were pretty good....”

Obama has signaled many times that he has no intention of backing off. He framed his administration's priorities as an urgent matter of solving problems that have been too-long delayed. Obama said his ambitious goals in such areas as education, health care, and energy policy are essential to laying the foundations for long-term growth. He said, "I think that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Yes, they require some uncomfortable votes. If it was easy, I'm assuming it would have been done 20 years ago or 30 years ago. It's not easy [politically], but it's the right thing to do. ....The days of growing the economy through an overheated housing market or through people running up exorbitant credit cards bills are over. We've got to put our growth model on a different footing.”

The media’s impatience is not the only problem. There is the problem of Republican lock-step ‘just say no’ to everything, with Cantor or Boehner, often surrounded by a group of Republicans, making statements every time they think they have found something with which to make the president look bad. They are trying to rebuild their own party by tearing him down. They have not publicly said they want him to fail, but they seem to be doing all they can to make him fail. President Obama has challenged these Republican critics to do more than just say no:

"I think what will be interesting is the degree to which my Republican colleagues start putting forward an affirmative agenda that's not based on ideology but on the very real struggles and pain that people are feeling right now around the country and how do we get this economy back on its feet. …Opposition is always easy. Saying no to something is easy. Saying yes to something and figuring out how to solve problems and governing, that's hard. On the budget debate, for example, you've got people who say, 'We want to bring down the long-term deficit, but we don't want to cut certain programs that are important. Oh, and by the way we don't want to raise taxes...well, show me how you're going to do it."

Then there is the growing concern by some moderate Democrats about the President’s agenda for comprehensive health care reform, a major push toward renewable energy, and an overhaul of tax policy being done at the same time he is dealing with the biggest economic crisis in a generation. They are so afraid that Obama could fail from “trying to do too much at once” and possibly causing them to lose their seats in the next election that they have become less concerned with policy changes that really would raise all boats. These Democrats are cowards.

Obama has acknowledged people’s concerns about his plans to rescue the nation's economy. "I think the one area where there's still significant uncertainty has to do with the banks, and that's obviously a particular concern to Wall Street," he said. "The challenge for us there is ... we're in the process of conducting the stress tests for the banks, to get a better sense of where their capital positions are and how strong they are. And we don't want to prejudge those tests or make a lot of statements that cause a lot of nervousness around banks that are already having difficulty."

In other words, this will take some time. Be patient.

“Whether we're talking about Republicans or my fellow Democrats, my argument is going to be that these are the right priorities for America, these are the right priorities for long-term economic growth,” Obama said.

Kevin Diaz writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding Obama’s latest press briefing: "Speaking slowly and deliberately, like the college professor he was, Obama made clear that his administration is in its infancy and that he still has the public on his side.... For early signs of hope, Obama pointed to his new housing plan to provide relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. 'You're already starting to see an uptick in refinancing that is providing families with relief,' he said. 'And in certain pockets of the country, you're starting to see housing prices stabilize after a long drop.

Washington is so full of people who believe that governing is a win-lose proposition that they seem unable to do what is right for this country. Obama said he had expected battles in Congress over his budget, but rebutted GOP assertions that the ambitious initiative represented a drastic lurch to the left. “For them to suggest that this was some radical assault on the rich makes no sense whatsoever,' Obama said, noting that a significant portion of the budget's tax increases - rescinding former President George W. Bush's tax cuts for more affluent taxpayers - had already been anticipated in Bush administration budgets." These Republicans are hypocrites. They were actually planning to do the same thing because it is fiscally necessary.

Most of us in the heartland are willing to wait for long term results – unlike the pundits who want all the problems solved right now or else they will declare Obama’s presidency a failure. They obviously feel a need to make news - as if there isn’t enough news already out there.

The little red hen

There is a nursery story about a little red hen who wanted to bake some bread. Whenever the little red hen would ask if anyone would help in doing a task, such as grinding the wheat, all the barnyard animals would say “not I.” Once the bread was baked and the little red hen asked “Who will help me eat this bread?” all the barnyard animals said “I will.” Of course, the little red hen refused them because they didn’t help. She fed the bread to her chicks.

Think of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) as the bread. Every Congressional Republican, except for three, kicked, screamed, and shouted against the bill. They threw tantrums because the bill was not written exactly they way they thought it should be.

But now that it’s passed and signed into law, some Republicans are taking credit for items in the bill, and all are lining up to get as much money as they can for their states, while they have put out ads saying how proud they are of clinging to their principles and voting against the bill.

Hypocrisy to the nth* degree!

Of course, when the stimulus begins to work in a year or so, the Republicans will say that the economy would have righted itself anyway. And if our economy is still in dire straights, they will blame President Obama instead of putting the blame where it rightly belongs – on years of Republican deregulated, laissez-faire economics (often called Reaganomics). If it does work, every Republican and the nine Democrats who voted against it should be throw out of office in 2010!

I cannot help but wish that any state whose Republican senators voted against the bill not get a share of the money. Let’s use those states as test subjects to see if doing nothing, as many Republicans said, will work and if their state economies will find equilibrium without any help from the federal government and without hitting bottom.

Maybe the Congressional Republicans should go back to nursery school and read the Little Red Hen.

*(pronounced inth)