Did the Federal Government Enable the Gulf Oil Spill? An “angry” President Barack Obama lashed out at those he feels are responsible for the Gulf oil spill Friday, telling reporters in the Rose Garden: “You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. I will not tolerate any more finger-pointing or irresponsibility.” But as CBS News‘ Chip Reid points out: “Mr. Obama’s been president for nearly 16 months. Does he get at least a little piece of the blame?” Pointing to President Obama’s staunch defense of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Reid answered his own question: “Not a bit. … He portrayed his administration as valiantly fighting the good fight against the oil companies from day one. …So while the president is pointing the finger of blame, he’s also working hard to make sure that over time the finger doesn’t do a 180.”
In the President’s mind the federal government apparently can do no wrong. The leading answer to every problem our nation faces is bigger, stronger, and more intrusive government regulations. But a closer look at the facts surrounding the spill shows that it was an already overly oppressive regulatory legal framework, coupled with lax enforcement, that created the mismatched incentives that led to the disaster.
According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century. Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut writes in today’s Wall Street Journal: “A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office.” Last March, by 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy. Now, by 51% to 40%, a majority of Americans say they want less government control.
President Obama has always tried to cast himself as a centrist. During the 2008 campaign, he promised Americans he would cut their taxes, expand the military, and enact “a net spending cut” for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government; these are core conservative beliefs. Unfortunately, President Obama has completely abandoned them by raising taxes on lower-income Americans, cutting defense spending, and enacting a $862 billion failed stimulus.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over half of President Barack Obama’s new $940 billion health care entitlement is paid for by price-fixing Medicare cuts. Never mind that the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that these cuts would cause “roughly 20 percent” of Medicare providers to go bankrupt in Obamacare’s first ten years. The CBO has to believe these cuts will happen because they are required, by law, to believe everything Congress tells them. The American people are not. So the American people ought to know that instead of cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates by 21% as required by law on April 1, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services froze payments at current levels until Congress could come back after Easter recess and rescind those cuts. Again. As they have done every year but one since the cuts were first enacted in 1997.
This doc fix is big enough that, if it had been included as a cost of Obamacare, it would have sent the President’s bill into the red all by itself. But the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts used to fund the rest of Obamacare are a much bigger problem. Even if we assume they all go as planned, President Obama’s budget would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010; and would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020. Add on the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that, given Congress’ track record, the American people would be naive to think will ever happen, and the federal government is looking at a pile of new debt.
Can the Obama administration’s desperate attempts to cover their true far left nature with centrist rhetoric and promises become any more transparent? Yesterday, the President announced “an expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration” in selected areas off the coasts of the United States. The President claims this announcement was made “in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs,” but nobody believes him. Just take a quick look at today’s newspaper reporting:
Fellow Americans,
Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington’s intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.
This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.
In July of this year, the American people were mostly undecided about Obamacare: equal numbers opposed and supported the health care bills that the White House was shepherding through Congress. But then August happened and informed Americans turned out at townhalls across the country to express their strong disapproval of Obamacare. The larger American public noticed and pluralities of the American people began to oppose Obamacare. The White House concluded they had a “communications problem” so they scheduled a prime time speech in front of a rare Joint Session of Congress. But the President’s speech arrogantly dismissed the concerns of the American people and after a brief uptick in support (from the low 40s to the mid 40s), opposition to the President’s plan grew.
Yesterday, USA Today ran an editorial on the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism, writing: “Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour.” Graciously given the space to respond to this charge, Obama administration Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan replied: “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Got that? The Obama administration considers any criticism of its national security policies, even from as benign a source as USA Today, as serving “the goals of al-Qaeda.” And the problems with Brennan’s letter don’t end there:
