The Obamaphiles are having second thoughts

Telegraph Blogs (U.K.) ^ | July 1, 2009 | Adrian Michaels

[Schnucki]

There is growing unrest among the more prominent commentators and media outlets that usually cheerlead for Barack Obama. They are upset that Congress is being allowed to mangle beyond recognition the president’s vision.

Yes, the stimulus bill was a bit of a legislative disaster, but something needed to pass while the global economy teetered on the brink. However, that is no excuse for the same happening to the flagship plans on climate change and health. Here, Clive Crook in the Financial Times and David Brooks in the New York Times start to vent their frustration at the way in which the White House has been framing and implementing its policies.

The White House has a very ambitious reform agenda - and since Obama campaigned on ambitious plans and won the election, it is his right to pursue this agenda. However, the administration has given every sign of not wanting to get involved in the detail of the legislation. It outsources that task to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the pork-smeared, incompetent, short-termist horsetraders so muddy the plans as to render them useless.

By the time the record stimulus bill emerged from Congress, only a fraction of it contained expenditure plans that were clearly directed at stimulating the economy. Critics of the cap-and-trade plans for carbon emissions say Congress is working on a law that could even have the opposite effect from reducing emissions because of the pricing signals it will send to the market. Obama has also reneged on a campaign promise to auction all emission permits, allowing Congress instead to propose auctioning just 15 per cent of permits and handing out the rest.

On health, there is some wrangling going on about the extent to which a public health plan will run alongside existing private systems. But

[Tarpon]

Aren’t the real questions we should ask about the Wacko-Malarkey climate hoax bill these:

1. How much will the CO2 be reduced if the Wacko-Malarkey climate bill is passed?

2. How much will the earth’s temperature be decreased by the Wacko-Malarkey climate bill?

3. Can you explain how taking money from one taxpayer and handing it to another taxpayer helps the earth’s climate?

4. How does creating a sub-prime market for carbon credits help anybody but AL Gore and his Wall Street pals? Cap and Trade, get it??

Hey, I’m just asking, because the whole Wacko-Malarkey scheme sounds whole lot like reparations to me, with the earth getting the short end of the affair.

[GOP Poet]

The White House has a very ambitious reform agenda - and since Obama campaigned on ambitious plans and won the election, it is his right to pursue this agenda

Another altering of reality and history. Obama did not campaign on these socialist/commie 'plans.' He campaign more as a conservative/moderate. It was upon the latter that he was elected by way of drawing in moderate voters to his already hearty liberal base. It was us conservatives that pointed to his real commie/socialist/very liberal record and the media made fun of us, tried to decimate us, and shut us out.

[ropin71]

bump

[Niuhuru]

“the media made fun of us, tried to decimate us, and shut us out.”

Denial is a wonderful thing, you can shut lots of stuff out. Except of course reality which bites people harder when faced with denial. It gets through eventually.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Yes, the stimulus bill was a bit of a legislative disaster, but something needed to pass while the global economy teetered on the brink.

"...something needed?" Wrong, wrong, wrong.