Mr Obama is completing his first 100 days as president.
If you’re a Democrat, the words you might use to describe the president’s first 100 days would be something like these: energetic, intense, charming, refreshing, honest, likeable, smart and competent, a leader and a positive change agent.
If you’re a Republican, the words you might use are: dangerous, inexperienced, weak, indecisive, reckless spender and liberal.
He promised change and he brought it, alright, but where is it leading? The first 100 days is a sprint, at the beginning of a very long marathon. He has not yet had to “pay the piper”. What happens when the bills start coming due? How long can he keep blaming the “mess he inherited” before it’s his mess?
The most recent Rasmussen poll found 77% of Americans favor the free market over a government managed economy and 73% feel government spending is likely to increase under this administration and only 20% think their taxes will actually go down over the next 3 1/2 years. A Fox news poll conducted last week found that over 60% feel government spending is out of control, and an overwhelming margin believe Obama has grown government, yet slightly over half (55%) approve either slightly or strongly of the job he is doing. A significantly larger percentage of voters strongly disapprove then they did on Day 1, 31%, up from just over 10%.
From “The Hill”, Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor, had this to say:
Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive.
Why?
• You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy;
• The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover;
• His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land;
• His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.
What he has proposed already is simply not sustainable. Add in universal health care, sky-rocketing utility rates with cap and trade, amnesty – and government benefits – for illegal immigrants and the shaky house of cards he is building seems destined for collapse. Remember Joe Biden’s plea for support back in October? “You all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, “Oh my G**, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?” I’m thinking the decline has begun, the honeymoon is ending and the winds of change ARE blowing – right on that house of cards.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz promised he would not accept a single earmark until there was significant reform. Many worried that their projects would not get funded. Others mocked him because, they said, “that’s just how it’s done”. As you might recall, there were a number of articles and blog posts from various quarters castigating the rookie for being naive at best for thinking he could get funding for worthwhile projects without following the “same old” system of earmarking pet projects.
Governor Huntsman seems to have cut all ties to the Republican party in Utah. Maybe the national office he is aiming for is under the current administration? Yesterday, he was noticeably absent from both the Utah and Salt Lake county conventions – but was
zzwords of the day, followed closely by increased use of Web 2.0 tools (email, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc) and accessibility. I expect that one of the first changes we will see is to the website.
In the end, a
proceeded to talk about the Eagle as envisioned by the founding fathers – three heads to represent the three branches of government, two wings to represent problem-solving (the left wing) and conservation (ie: conservative – the right wing). Both wings are needed. Both need to be carefully balanced so as not to tilt us towards tyranny or anarchy. At the end of his speech, he commented briefly on Utah’s constitutional protection of marriage and expressed confusion over how our governor could himself be confused over what seems to be a very clear mandate. In Utah, by constitution, marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions are out of the question.