Obama’s trust-in-government deficit

Whatever else happens as a result of the multiple controversies that have engulfed the administration, one thing is clear: President Obama has failed to meet one of the most important goals he set out when he was first elected, which was to demonstrate that activist government could also be smart government.

Six weeks after winning the presidency in 2008, Obama reflected on the meaning of the election. He was reluctant to claim, as some others were, that his victory marked the beginning of an era in which Americans would embrace bigger government. Suspicion of command-and-control, top-down government, he said, was “a lasting legacy” of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

So rather than portraying his first election as the end of a long period of conservative ascendancy, Obama called it “a correction to the correction.” As he put it then: “I think what you saw in this election was people saying, ‘Yes, we don’t want some big, bureaucratic, ever-expanding state. On the other hand, we don’t want a state that’s dysfunctional, that doesn’t believe in its mission, that can’t carry out some of the basic functions of government and provide serviced to people and be there when they’re hurting.’ ”

He then described what that meant for the government he was beginning to assemble. “What we don’t know yet is whether my administration and this next generation of leadership is going to be able to hew to a new, more pragmatic approach that is less interested in whether we have big government or small government [but is] more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government.”

What has happened since Obama laid down that challenge for his administration? More Americans favor smaller government over bigger government than when he was first elected, according to exit polls from last November. Public confidence in the federal government is as low as it has ever been, according to a Pew Research Center survey released this spring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-trust-in-government-deficit/2013/05/18/5c0bb23a-bf21-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z1

They want a small government, except for the three quarters of a trillion dollars they want to spend for defense. As usual, the Republicans are overplaying their hand, and gratefully, that's what delivered 332 electoral votes to Obama. They never learn!

This weekend, four of the government’s biggest agencies are beset by political controversy, management breakdowns or both: State (what happened in Benghazi), Treasury (targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service), Justice (leak-related investigation of the Association Press) and Defense (rising numbers of sexual assaults). Add to that the questions about Health and Human Services and its implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and it is little wonder confidence has eroded.

And ABC News just learned that the White House Easter Egg Hunt was rigged this year. A congressional investigation will follow!

fshnski wrote:This weekend, four of the government’s biggest agencies are beset by political controversy, management breakdowns or both: State (what happened in Benghazi), Treasury (targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service), Justice (leak-related investigation of the Association Press) and Defense (rising numbers of sexual assaults). Add to that the questions about Health and Human Services and its implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and it is little wonder confidence has eroded.

What Banana Republic hasn't had its share of misdeeds?

News Buzzard wrote:They want a small government, except for the three quarters of a trillion dollars they want to spend for defense.

Defense is one of the few enumerated expenditures allowed by our Constitution, I am trying to find "investing in infrastructure, free healthcare and social contract". Can't seem to find it anywhere. Why don't we just cut all the manure that is not supposed to be there in the first place instead of bitching about the things the Fed is actually supposed to do?

Sorry, you lose! Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare and Medicaid are here to stay. The old and poor can thank the last election for that. And now, because of Republican intransigence, it looks like we won't even be going to the chained-CPI with Social Security, and cuts to Medicare won't happen. We don't need no stinkin' grand bargain!

That's the best you can come up with?

fshnski wrote:That's the best you can come up with?

That's all I need to come up with!

Good response. You really got me there.

This is what he would have us pay, fsh. 100%. But of course the liberals would not pay that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518

News Buzzard wrote:

fshnski wrote:That's the best you can come up with?

That's all I need to come up with!

Fsh, you got that directly from Obama's lips...