Guest Columnist: Pete Snyder – “Our Blamer-In-Chief”

It seems President Obama’s line about a “do-nothing” Congress is about to ring a little less true. Since 2011, he has bemoaned his miserable fate of having to work with a—gasp!—divided Congress. But the picture he painted of a valiant president and his party fighting obstructionist Republicans was never quite accurate.

After all, President Obama had two years of one of the most liberal Congresses ever, and even Senate Democrats to this day refuse to pass his budgets. This reality was brought into even sharper focus today with President Obama’s announcement about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts lapse: Democrats aren’t buying it.

As CNBC reports:

Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year.

Democratic Senators Jim Webb and Ben Nelson also oppose raising taxes on any income brackets next year, with still more saying they might vote no. And even Larry Summers, Director of Obama’s National Economic Council through the first two years of his term, disagrees:

Lawrence Summers, who led the White House National Economic Council in early years of the Obama administration, said Congress should temporarily extend tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year.

So, never mind the fact that this is so clearly such bad policy that prominent economists and Obama’s own supporters like Jim Webb and Tim Kaine are railing against it. Never mind that it would take earnings out of the hands of our nation’s crucial job-creators and spenders at precisely the moment we need them to be investing and hiring workers. The real question is: who will President Obama blame this time?

He’s now lost his favorite targets—Republican lawmakers—because even Democrats won’t go along with his insensible policies. He’s lost the “millionaires and billionaires” because he still needs someone to beg for campaign dollars (on Air Force One, no less).

It seems that this is the point at which any reasonable president would finally have to look himself in the mirror and realize that he is the reason for his failures of the past three-and-half years. But, with President Obama, our Blamer-in-Chief, the chances of that happening are slim to none.


5 thoughts on “Guest Columnist: Pete Snyder – “Our Blamer-In-Chief”

  1. Did it ever occur to you that Reagan’s principal economic actor/advisor was Paul Volcker? And Obama’s principal economic czar – the one who led development of the Stimulus Plan was…………Paul Volcker?

  2. Our current economic disaster lies completely at the feet of Obama and his gang. He’s had over three years to enact his “Change;” two with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Instead of implementing policies to get the private economy to create jobs, he spent most of his time ramming an unwanted health care bill down our throats, attacking the people who create jobs, assuming that everyone can just work for the government or collect benefits of some sort, growing the national debt exponentially, and boring us with his “fairness” ideology.

    I never thought I would being saying good things about Bill Clinton, but Clinton is a pragmatist and tried to get Obama to lose the left-wing dogma and do something practical to get the economy moving again. Clinton was pounced upon by the left-wing ideologues that now control his party.

    I’m glad Ken brought up Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan. Volcker was Chair of the Fed when Reagan took office, and Reagan reappointed him to another term. Volcker is an ardent Monetarist, or adherent to the economics of Milton Freidman. The combination of Volcker’s policies and the Reagan supply-side policies turned the Carter recession around in about two years and led to one of the greatest boom periods and job creation in our nation’s history.

    I wish Obama would listen more to Volcker, but even if he did the missing piece here would still be Reagan’s other policies. Obama has listened little to Volcker (not enough) and takes more advice from clowns like Paul Krugman. The biggest Nobel Prize Committee joke other than giving Obama the Peace Prize was giving Krugman the Economics Prize. Go to the Nobel Prize website and read the justification. It’s a joke. The Committee was pushing its politics to support a like-minded left-winger in the US trying to remake us according to the model of European socialism.

    This economy belongs to Barack Obama. No more blaming George Bush or anyone else. He’s had over three years and has failed dismally. We never got to anything better than sluggish growth with high unemployment, and even that is slowing now. It’s high time to ditch this clown and elect a president and congress who can get the economy and job creation going again.

    1. I’m by no means a Keynesian, but I have to disagree with on why Krugman won the Nobel Prize. He won the Nobel for his groundbreaking analysis on global trade patterns… something that wasn’t inheritantly Keynesian. It was well known for decades before he would become a left-wing NYT columnist that he would win the Nobel sometime in the future.

      Lets stick to criticism of Krugman’s current analysis and not beat up the fact that he legitimately won the Nobel for groundbreaking research decades ago.

  3. I’ll grant that Krugman’s work on trade theory was serious economic research. However, it was essentially just an extension of work done earlier by Bertil Ohlin, who won the Economics Prize legitimately for his genuinely ground-breaking work in this field. Moreover, Krugman’s work is about thirty years old, and even the Nobel Committee acknowledged that his work for the past twenty years has been directed toward “non-economists.”

    The Nobel Committee denied the Economics Prize in 2008 to many other economists who were much more deserving only to make a political statement. They reached back about 30 years to find something to justify giving the Economics Prize to an Obama polemicist to support the false claim of economic competence on the Obama team. Obama won the Peace Prize in 2009 based on absolutely zilch accomplishments, and only because the Nobel Committee wanted to make a political statement. Krugman won it based on three-decades old, marginally important research that did nothing more than extend somewhat the research of a real economist, and only because the Nobel Committee wanted to make a political statement.

    1. Fair enough, but econ Nobel’s tend to be awarded decades after the research to ensure it stands the test of time.

      I’d love to debate you on the point of Ohlin trade being the basis of Krugman’s research… however I doubt that this is the medium to do so. I wish I had time to meet some of the fine conservatives on this site – but recently my work has taken me to Baltimore from 1 day a week to now at least 2 (with a possible upcoming transfer up there – YIKES!).

      You seem like you know your stuff. Do you work in the econ field? Regardless, my hat is off to you – you seem like a gentleman and a scholar.

Comments are closed.