If passage of the financial regulatory overhaul last Thursday proves anything about US President Barack Obama, it is this: He knows how to push big bills through a balky US Congress.
Though Obama’s legislative success poses a paradox: While he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters at a time of economic distress, and soon may be forced to scale back his ambitions.
The financial regulatory bill is the final piece of a legislative hat trick that also included the stimulus bill and the landmark new healthcare law. Over the past 18 months, Obama and the Democratic Congress have made considerable inroads in passing what could be the most ambitious agenda in decades.
Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: He has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected US$787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers.
However, as he has done so, the political context has changed around him. Today, with unemployment remaining persistently near double digits despite the scale of the stimulus program and the BP oil spill having raised questions about his administration’s competence, Obama’s signature legislation is providing ammunition to conservatives who argue that government is the problem, not the solution.
What Obama and his allies portray as progressive, activist government has been framed by his opponents as overreaching and profligate when it comes to the economy.
Even before the November elections, the White House is being forced to recalibrate. Last week, Obama and Senate Democrats decided to press ahead with a scaled-back energy bill, having concluded after months of gridlock that the sweeping measure they once envisioned simply would not pass. It is a tactic that the president will likely have to employ more and more after the November elections, when Democrats will almost certainly lose seats — and may even lose control of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
“They clearly made a decision that political capital was something that should be used, not saved,” said Steven Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who worked for years as a senior leadership aide on Capitol Hill.
“The reality is, he talked before the election about what he wanted to do, and he’s done it. He didn’t trim his sails, he didn’t change his philosophy. He didn’t compromise. The test will come in the fall: Can he and Democrats in Congress make the case to the American people that what he did was the right thing to do?” Elmendorf said.
That is a difficult case to make, though Obama is trying. A recent poll found that while a majority of Americans supported increasing regulations on banks and financial institutions, nearly three-quarters said Obama’s stimulus bill had not improved the economy, and only a little more than a third approved of the healthcare law.
“You know, sometimes these pundits, they can’t figure me out,” the president said last week, campaigning in Kansas City, Missouri, for the Democratic Senate candidate there.
“They say, ‘Well, why is he doing that?’ That doesn’t poll well. Well, I’ve got my own pollsters, I know it doesn’t poll well. But it’s the right thing to do for America,” Obama said.
It is an argument that sounds eerily similar to the one Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made to justify an unpopular war in Iraq as he watched his own poll numbers sink lower. Bush and his aides often felt they could not catch a break; when the economy was humming along — or at least seemed to be humming along — the Bush White House never got credit for it, because the public was so upset about the war.
In Obama’s case, people are up in arms over the economy. Just 40 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, the recent poll found. More than half said he was spending too little time on the economy. In one of the most striking findings, nearly two-thirds said the president’s economic policies had no effect on them personally — just 13 percent said they had helped them.
“Voters don’t have a checklist that they tick off, of what an elected official promised and then delivered,” said Charlie Cook, the editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter that tracks congressional races.
“They were enormously frustrated last year by the fixation on healthcare when they wanted a focus on the economy, with Democrats losing the messaging fight on whether what they did was right and effective or not,” Cook said.
Part of the problem for Obama is that he came to Washington vowing to change the partisan tone in the capital, something he has thus far been unable to do. Just three Senate Republicans voted for the financial regulatory bill on Thursday, continuing a pattern that began early in Obama’s presidency when just three Republicans joined him on the stimulus bill.
At this point, relations between the president and the opposing party are no better than they were when Bush left office. Within hours of the bill’s passage on Thursday, Democrats including Obama were reminding voters that the House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, had called for its repeal.
As Obama traveled to Michigan on Thursday to promote his economic policies, Boehner accused him of “a bunch of fuzzy math.”
If Republicans reclaim control of the House, the Senate or both, Obama will find himself in a situation similar to that of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who lost control of the House in 1994 in a historic realignment. Clinton responded by steering toward the center, searching for issues on which he could find Republicans to cooperate.
If Obama’s new tack on the energy bill is any guide, he may be willing to refashion himself as a pragmatist who will compromise in exchange for smaller victories. The coming elections may answer the question of how far the president, having had a taste of big things, is willing to bend.
“It could be a prescription for real gridlock, or it could be a prescription for great compromise,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist, “and I don’t think we know the answer.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry