Posted on 01/20/2015 4:07:53 AM PST by HomerBohn
With just two years left in the White House, President Obama faces a major challenge — not so much from Republicans as from the public at large. As Democrats look ahead to 2016 and imagine the coming campaign of a yet-to-be-chosen nominee, Obama risks being written off by all parties as irrelevant.
Having now lost both houses of Congress, Obama has lost the platform from which he can set the agenda. Soon, his party will choose a new leader to move forward, and he will be a thing of the past. This means Obama must now go to greater lengths than before in order to assert his relevance and keep the attention of a weary public.
To that end, his proposals are now beginning to match the worst stereotype of liberal policymaking — a stereotype often unfairly applied, but which certainly fits now. Obama's ideas are getting more expensive and more generous with other people's money, because that's what he believes it will take to keep the public's attention.
Obama's two most recent policy proposals — federally funded community college and paid sick and maternity leave — fit this populist model well. Each offers something that appears to be free, while attempting to hide the very real costs from the public.
Obama's college plan is not as promising politically — it is too hard to hide its $60 billion price tag. But his plan for maternity leave should have Republicans losing sleep at night. Unlike the Democrats' previous pitch to women, which mostly aimed to mobilize single women by obsessing over contraception and abortion, this plan is is designed to appeal to married women, a Republican voting bloc.
Nine in ten American businesses provide paid sick leave, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. But only 12 percent currently offer paid maternity leave, beyond the benefits available through state and employer short-term disability programs. The basic economic case against mandated paid leave is that businesses are ultimately concerned with the total cost of compensation for their employees. If the government forces them to offer benefits, then they'll just reduce salaries to keep the cost of compensation constant.
The lack of a federal requirement to pay those not working is one thing that has allowed American employers to pay better wages to those actually working. As the Heritage Foundation's James Sherk put it, “The popularity of Obama’s paid sick leave proposal depends on workers not realizing it ultimately comes out of their paychecks.” He notes with some amusement that the best academic work demonstrating the relationship between higher benefits and lower pay comes from economist Jonathan Gruber — the same architect of Obamacare whose excessive straightforwardness has proven such an embarrassment to the Obama White House.
Legally binding paid maternity leave would also likely harm the job prospects of younger women. This would, in the long run, help widen the gap between what men and women earn.
Conservatives may still find these sound arguments insufficient to turn back the emotional populism Obama is offering. As with the minimum wage, this may be the bad policy that cannot lose at the ballot box. But the arguments must be made. Far bigger than this individual issue is the need to fight the perception that irresponsible and unpopular politicians can rehabilitate themselves by simply promising to make the federal government boss employers around so that hiring and economic growth suffer.
This parasite is the Oscar Madison of goobermint: throw enough linguini on the wall and see if any of it sticks.
Another indication that Dumbocrats believe Obama led them over a cliff w/ the ill-fated Obamacare.
About 30 lock-stepping Democrats were tossed out at midterms---Dumbos lost the House and the Senate and all the perks and privileges that go w/ being in the majority.
Obama's got a disgruntled buncha Dumbos on his hands. He better be careful---the destructive vengeance Dumbos heaped upon Americans and America might now be refocused...... on Obama....
Thank God for the TV remote mute button!
America has witnessed the tragic consequences of a generation inculcated with moral relativity and situation ethics. The ghost of Saul Alinsky lurks behind the Progressive Poison spewed by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of their ilk.
The Dumbos clearly see themselves as "deconstructionists"----savagely committed to tearing down America's traditions. Every maniacal official govt act is dedicated to chipping away at the bulwark of American freedoms.
Obama put cadres of self-absorbed punks who are squatting in govt---imbedded in the Civil Service system. They are clearly disturbed and dysfunctional---obsessed with religious cleansing and kicking religionists to the curb.
Their motto: "Everything For Us--Nothing For You."
That same generation inculcated with moral relativity and situation ethics has segued into The Entitlement Generation---better known as "Pay Me--I'm a Victim.
The Obamas, The Clintons, the De Blasios, and the rest of the Progressive savages, are ruthless predators w/ no empathy for others and no remorse. They are anti-social psychopaths who recognize no moral boundaries--aggressively going after what they want, irregardless of the consequences to others.
He wants to be head of the UN
people aren’t getting it, all this stuff, free college, paid maternity leave, TANF, SNAP are nothing in relation to the multi-billion dollar ripoffs of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
Other than the farm bill (and I assume you are not referring to businesses being able to write-off typical business expenses) what corporate welfare are you referring to? Specific examples would be helpful.
Maybe I am not using the right terminology. I am referring to outright thefts as exhibited by Solyndra. And the bailouts of the the Wall Street firms. Don’t get snippy with me, I don’t know them all, but they are happening.
I am thrilled with Obama, precisely because I view the 2016 Senate elections as a glass half full.
There are a remarkable number of competitive elections involving Republican incumbents. Truly remarkable. The party is at considerable risk of losing the 4-5 seats that would give control back to the Democrats.
But here is the flip side ... What if the Democrats do not gain much ground in the Senate? The way I figure things, which is to say amateurishly I suppose, these two-year cohorts are so lopsided in partisan ways that this is the Democrats’ one chance. If they do not retake the Senate in 2016, then their chances of being the majority party there essentially evaporate until 2022. The Republicans have an iron grip on the House, so the Dems must go all in for 2016.
The bottom line is that Obama is going to play smash mouth politics at every turn. And Mitch McConnell is going to make every Democratic Senator miserable as a result. I know that he and Boehner are exceedingly unpopular on this forum, but McConnell is among the best parliamentarians of the past century. He is going to run rings around Obama and the Dems.
I don’t imagine that much will get done over the next two years, and that will make folks on this forum ever unhappier and more cynical. But as I believe that only bad things lie ahead as long as we have the president we do, I am at least hoping that this is all a set up to a semi-permanent legislative majority and a conservative Republican President in 2016.
Stopped reading here.
Obola has the power of the Executive Branch - the miltiary and LEO's - the muscle of the government. And he has emasculated the GOP, so even their "majority' in the Congress is voided.
He is governing by fiat, and doesn't need Congress - and by extension, you and me.
“Having now lost both houses of Congress, Obama has lost the platform from which he can set the agenda.”
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
In a sense, no crime is illegal if you don’t get convicted. Speeding, murder, assault and battery? Didn’t get stopped? You’re cool. Have a g’day.
You are right, that is crony capitalism. As far as the corporate welfare, that is a term used by the left to get people angry at businesses in general, and then get specific, like - Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc. They claim to want to close "loopholes" but what they really mean is, don't let them write off legitimate business expenses.
oh I didn’t know that. I have no issue with writing off business expenses. Thank you for the explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.