"The chasm between perceptions and reality"

[impik]

....If voters who backed Obama two years ago are prepared to make an evaluation based on accomplishments, and decide whether to vote in 2010 accordingly, the White House has a compelling case to make, the popularity of these successes notwithstanding.

As unsatisfying as it seems to grade on a curve, it's worth noting that while Obama took office with sky-high expectations, he was also against the backdrop of a country that was practically in free fall. Arguably no president in American history started his first day with a list like this: the Great Recession, two deadly wars, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit and budget mess, crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the U.S. auto industry on the verge of collapse, a mess at Gitmo, a severely tarnished global reputation, an executive branch damaged by corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement, and an angry, deeply divided electorate.

The president was told to clean all of this up, quickly, without the benefit of a minority party willing to play a constructive role. And just to make things really interesting, Obama was also told that for the first time in the history of the United States, every initiative he came up with would need mandatory supermajorities just to pass the Senate.

And despite all of this, what have seen? The Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, nuclear arms deal with Russia, a new global nonproliferation initiative, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years.

But what about the unpopularity of the Democratic successes? Why are Democrats understandably reluctant to run on the most successful two years of policymaking in decades?

The White House's message machine has often fallen far short of late, but part of me thinks the pitch at this point should go something like this: we were moving in the wrong direction, but we've made some unpopular moves to get back on track.

It's like a recovery from a serious illness -- you feel miserable, the medicine tastes awful, and the shots hurt. You're left frustrated, weak, and maybe even embarrassed. The physical therapy and recovery process takes too long and leaves you wondering if it's even worth it.

But it is. Recovery happens. It wasn't pleasant, and the illness wasn't your fault, but you make progress and you get better, even if there are times when that seems that's unlikely.

Getting back on your feet and thriving again may seem like a "pipe dream," but once the toughest moves are behind you, real progress lies ahead -- that is, unless you decide to go back to the quacks who got you sick in the first place.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025740.php#more

[DJ13]

1. The perception is were no better off now than at the start of 09

The reality is Wall Street and the banks are in far better shape, but the rest of us arent seeing things improving.

Its a shame there wasnt as much effort to ease the fiscal problems average americans face compared to the all out response (within DAYS) the government took in rescuing the already wealthy.

[obxhead]

3. That's exactly it.

There has been some victories of course.

The real problem is that the Dems have jumped through hoops to relieve the corporations in record time while not really looking for any meaningful ways to rescue the backbone of the entire system, that backbone being us.

[napi21]

6. I think you're wrong about the avg. person not being i better shape than they were

2 years ago. We're a far cry from wealthy! We're both retired & living n SS and have a fairly small 401k account. Our house is paid for & so is our car. The house hasn't appreciated in value but it hasn't decreased either like those that were grossly overpriced several years ago. The car is 12 yo but it still looks like new & only has 68,000 miles so it'll be good for several years. The place where I see imrovement is our 401k. We had our funds in very conservative investments but they took a big hit when our economy crashed. I had all the funds tr'd to cash but of course it had already fallen to 50% of what it was worth prior to the crash. After things settled down we tr'd the $$ back into some conservative mutual funds & some solid co. stocks. It's total value is almost back to what it had been. Although we're trying not to have to use any of those funds, it's a comforting feeling that they're there.

I know there are many people in much worse shape than we are and for those who can't find a job, my heart goes out to them, but I think people need to realize that Obama is not God nor can he twitch his nose and magically make things happen. I firmly believe he is trying everythig he can to get the private sector creatin jobs again, and that he's faced with fierce opposition to every idea he has.

He has earned a Dem majority for his second 2 years. If at the end of 2012 we must reasses how things are and vote accordingly.

[senseandsensibility]

8. "rescuing the already wealthy" indeed

and WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS. Yes, I am screaming.

[jaxx]

2. It's worth whatever time it takes to get it done.

This country didn't get into the mess in 2 years and it's ridiculous to think we'd get out of it in 2 years. The pubs will do nothing but obstruct and every inch of progress has been a hard fought battle. Is it worth it? Does the country like where we were left in 2008?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. "Legislation" does not equal "reform"

The vaunted "stimulus package" was roughly 5% of the true size of the Banker Bailout.

Virtually nobody's been helped by health insurance and financial "reforms" - and since the bills are more than 2,000 pages long (each!) ad co-written by lobbyists, there's not a ton of confidence that they'll be helpful in the future.

[jaxx]

7. This is interesting:

<snip> Shortly after President Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, drought and erosion combined to cause the Dust Bowl, shifting hundreds of thousands of displaced persons off their farms in the Midwest. From his inauguration onward, Roosevelt argued that restructuring of the economy would be needed to prevent another depression or avoid prolonging the current one. New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending and the institution of financial reforms. The Securities Act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. This was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. Though amended, key provisions of both Acts are still in force. Federal insurance of bank deposits was provided by the FDIC, and the Glass-Steagall Act. The institution of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) remains a controversial act to this day. The NRA made a number of sweeping changes to the American economy until it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1935.

Early changes by the Roosevelt administration included:

* Instituting regulations to fight deflationary "cut-throat competition" through the NRA.
* Setting minimum prices and wages, labor standards, and competitive conditions in all industries through the NRA.
* Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class.
* Cutting farm production to raise prices through the Agricultural Adjustment Act and its successors.
* Forcing businesses to work with government to set price codes through the NRA.

These reforms, together with several other relief and recovery measures, are called the First New Deal. Economic stimulus was attempted through a new alphabet soup of agencies set up in 1933 and 1934 and previously extant agencies such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. By 1935, the "Second New Deal" added Social Security (which did not start making large payouts until much later), a jobs program for the unemployed (the Works Progress Administration, WPA) and, through the National Labor Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labor unions. In 1929, federal expenditures constituted only 3% of the GDP. The national debt as a proportion of GNP rose under Hoover from 20% to 40%. Roosevelt kept it at 40% until the war began, when it soared to 128%.

By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.<77> The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.<78> Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.<79> Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.<80> After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2%, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs. Social Security, however, remained in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

It looks to me like there should be a lot more confidence in today, the things done did make a big difference in the downward spiral we were at in 2008. How many pages in a bill have nothing to do with content of the reform. And people will benefit from the health care and financial reforms. High expectations are fine as long as they respect reality.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Unemployment turned around immediately once FDR took office

FDR focused on the middle class.

That's a huge difference.

[jaxx]

11. It took 4 years to drop to 14% from 25%.

Hardly immediately dropping.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. No. It started dropping right away (vs. increasing since Obama took office)

It may not have dropped as quickly under FDR as everyone would have liked - but it dropped.

Two years into Obama's presidency, true unemployment (as measured the same was as under FDR) is not dropping:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[jaxx]

13. Ah only the shadow knows.

I disagree. History says how long it took and the numbers.

[jpgray]

5. I certainly didn't expect any miracles

But I believe on some level policy needs to be judged on its merits. Yes, there are practical difficulties in passing any sweeping reforms, and these often overwhelm even the slightest chance for a true upset of the status quo. That doesn't mean that the status quo doesn't need to be upset. One can recognize that Obama is working against severe, almost insurmountable restrictions on some issues, while at the same time one can argue that this or that policy falls short of what is necessary or just.

For example, the stimulus--absolutely necessary, extremely unpopular. It's amazing and very valuable that he got -something- passed there. The climate right now means he can't get a second stimulus passed, and could not make the first large enough. That doesn't mean that a second stimulus -shouldn't- be passed, or that the first was just the right size. He faces relentless opposition to closing Guantanamo, yet doing so is unquestionably the right thing to do. He was up against an army of interests richer than Croesus ten times over in the health care and financial reform debates, but that doesn't mean that we should avoid noticing that those interests significantly weakened the tougher reforms.

There are other issues where he has less of an excuse. While the Hate Crimes Prevention and Lily Ledbetter Acts are unquestionably proud achievements, support for human rights (and public opinion) argue for the repeal of DADT and support for gay marriage, whatever his campaign statements or political concerns.

There is a difference often between what is right and what is expedient. One can recognize both at once, and understand why a political figure at times bows to the latter and at other times fights for the former against overwhelming odds.

For the fights he deserves praise. For the bows to expediency he should expect criticism.

[Cha]

9. KR. Thank you, impik~