Is President Obama changing America for better or worse?

better

1 of 7

by Erik Setser

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Many of the talking points behind the Anti-Obama school of thought stem from incomplete truths, impatience and a blatant disregard of facts. For a few decades now (I'm honestly not sure exactly how long), it has been popular to hate the current administration. The 2008 election showed just fast and abrupt that shift can be, what with how quickly Obama's accolades were replaced with accusations when he was still only President-Elect.

One of most prominent issues laid out on the table is his approach to the economy and federal taxes. He has chosen to employ the risky but necessary gambit of increasing spending in grossly underfunded categories - such as education, infrastructure and green energy research - while whittling away at excessive overseas spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. What this means is a temporary increase in the national deficit which will later fade, the momentum of which will eat away at the Bush-induced debt of $10 trillion. He made it abundantly clear throughout his campaign that this was his intent. He chose not to wait until we had eliminated a significant amount of overseas pork barrel spending because the aforementioned responsibilities could not afford to go even one more year so painfully underfunded.

Speaking of pork barrel spending, I recently read a list of the top 10 collectors of pork barrel funds from the stimulus package. A large portion of them were for continuing state tuition grant programs and repairing local highways. Sorry to sound ignorant, but when did investments in higher education for those who can't afford it and safe roads within communities (as well as jobs that would garner a direct return on the investment) come to be considered pork barrel spending? Furthermore, where have these same people been the entire time we've been pumping billions of dollars into Iraq, largely to perform premeditated repairs to city infrastructure that we damaged? There's no return on that beyond the gratitude of half the nation, which we had when we rid them of Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, to alleviate the temporary rise in federal spending, as well as the $787 stimulus package, President Obama followed through on his promise to increase taxes. Not only did he follow through, he followed through to the letter, which was quite clearly defined. Only those who make more than $250,000 a year would be affected. (This means that he and wife Michelle will receive a tax hike. A recent report showed that they paid their 2008 taxes in full and on time, opting to apply the excess to their 2009 taxes rather than receive a return. So he has the lack of hypocrisy going for him there.) But through a combination of soapbox criers, speaking in lieu of Joe the Plumber, and warnings about the $400 tax credit and the possible ways to end up owing more money because of it, people making less than the average salary for their city are complaining that they're going to be overtaxed thanks to Obama's "reckless spending."

First of all, I'd like to point out once again that those people aren't going to be affected. In fact, only an estimated 3% of families will receive tax hikes. Furthermore, the possible ways to end up owing more money because of the tax credit included a single person working two jobs (as they would receive a tax credit for each job, but would only be allowed to keep one in most cases) and one of the two ways for married couples to file, if they each have only one job. If a person who works two jobs has an unemployed spouse, that person would be able to keep both credits if they file the other way (I forget if it's filing together or separately.) Anyway, the point is that it's easy to be avoid owing extra money. In fact, if you need to pick up a second job, just write in one fewer exemption than what you're actually allowed (so if you're single with no children, put 0). The increased tax and the tax credit will roughly balance each other out.

But the reckless spending is another point I feel needs to be addressed. It was the Bush administration that put is in so deep a debt, and it was they who let all but military spending fall by the wayside and suffer as such in the meantime. Because of them, the Obama administration inherited the responsibility of deciding to let those programs continue to choke, or resuscitate them, in some cases using the restored livelihood of some to repair others, and use that newfound stability to wear down the national debt. He opted to do the latter, because he has this "amazing" ability to approach problems with more intelligent solutions than simply "X is underfunded. Y is underfunded. Screw Y; X is more important." How about that?

One point that continues this ignorance about his approach to the economy is the media's depiction of it. First off, any time further itemization of the stimulus package was made public, it was rarely reported as such. This gave the impression that the administration was spending a few billion more on top of the $787 that had already been invested. And there in the middle of that sentence is the other suspicious faux pas. It's always referred to as spending, just as it was when referring to Iraq War funds. This gives the impression that money is being given, something is received, be it a product or service, and that's the end of it. A more appropriate term would be investing, as nearly all of the items on the list would garner a return on the tax dollars spent on them. For instance, tuition credits through Americorps will increase college graduation rates, thus increasing the average salary (most notably within individual communities), resulting in an increase in tax dollars coming back to the government as well as money - with actual value - actively circulating.

Also, people seem to forget about the fact that there is still a budget of incoming tax dollars every year. Much of the money being invested beyond the stimulus package is to come from that. But these soap box tea partiers would rather believe their own misconceptions, all while shifting their complaint back and forth between the government spending money is doesn't have and overtaxing them or using them as federal piggybanks. (How long has that last one been part of the deal now?)

President Obama's approach to military affairs overseas has also been the subject of ignorant mudslinging. It's understandable to be wary of his knowledge on the military since he never served. He's too young to have been subject to the draft. But he has repeatedly opened dialogues with General Dave Patreas, educating himself on what a withdrawal would require both in a way of resources and time. His time table is based largely on Patreas's advisings. President Obama recognizes his own shortcomings and seeks the counsel of experts, or atleast the more informed, when making decisions such as these.

Along those same lines, his negotiating with terrorists was also misconstrued. Big surprise. He has spoken with government officials in the Middle East (Surprise! Al-Qaeda doesn't govern Afghanistan! 9/11 was more akin to a mafat Ku Klux Klan bombing Kinshasa than an official declaration of war penned in blood and ash.) about working with Talibani personnel who exhibit behaviors suggesting they want out in order to gain intelligence on the organization. It is a risky maneuver, but one that he will not approach with the haphazardous arrogance of the Bush administration. Obama's willingness to discuss federal affairs, both domestic and foreign, with others before taking action are evidence of such.

He always approaches a situation with his intended goal and an idea of how to reach it. But the idea isn't presented with an attitude of "How can we pull this off?" As it should be, the goal is presented with that attitude, and the idea is presented as a suggestion. Using this as a starting point, a brainstorm over party lines and even national borders begins. In other words, he's less a ruler and more a leader, as it should be. He garners respect by considering and implementing adjustments and negotiations to his goals and plans, rather than fear and hatred by ruling with an iron fist.

See, much of the bitterness comes from misconceptions. Regarding the impatience I mentioned at the beginning, some people seemed to expect the impact of the stimulus bill to be as swift as its passing. Funds have to be allocated within states, then cities, then individual communities. Some companies and organizations have received their cut, but the process is still ongoing. Others still, of a much more ignorant ilk, were actually complaining about how much the Dow Jones dropped between Election Day and Inauguration Day, touting an I-told-you-so attitude about Obama's ability to fix the economy. Not only is that too short a time for anybody to repair the damage done, but Bush was still President!

The changes are slow, but they're coming. They're good for most of us and will get better with time. Obama may not go down in history as one of the greats. But when the 2020 President-Elect inherits a nation with virtually no national debt, those of us who were paying attention will remember who risked defamation across his entire administration - with an ill-publicized plan - just to start us on the way to recovery.

Learn more about this author, Erik Setser.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.