Curse of can’t-do government

As seen in The Hill 

It’s been a tough few weeks for President Obama. The disastrous launch of his controversial health care law, marked by a malfunctioning website, insurance rate hikes and millions of cancelled policies, has even the president’s most ardent admirers questioning his executive ability.

The New York Times is asking if Obama is simply a “bystander” to his own administration. And it goes without saying that the president’s opponents are having a field day pointing out the obvious problems of a White House that on more than one occasion was seemingly blindsided by major issues in its own administration.

But there’s one key point that’s being lost amidst the scramble to spin the press and pass the blame: With a government this massive and convoluted, the president never stood a chance. The current morass in Washington is larger than one man, one administration or one political party. It’s the ultimate reality of big government—and the reality isn’t pretty.

This is not to excuse the president for his administration’s debacles. After Obama declared for the presidency in 2007, he was uncritically celebrated for his leadership and managerial skills, though at that time those skills were untested. Obama was happy to bask in that admiration and feed the illusion, which played no small role in getting him elected. So it’s only fair that he should be held to account when he’s revealed as something less than the hyper-competent, hands-on executive he presented himself to be.

Obama’s belief in results-oriented “can-do government” was the basis for his soaring speeches and “change we can believe in.” Central to this image was a self-consciously grand, sweeping vision of the government’s capabilities, which the president summed up on a sharp four-word formula in his 2011 State of the Union address: “We do big things,” he declared.

But someone should have warned the president there’s little pride to be had in doing “big things” if they’re done poorly. And the unintended consequences of trying to do “big things” through the federal government usually leads to policies that do more harm than good.

Such is the lesson of the disastrous Obamacare roll-out: Forget about the big things, because the federal government in Washington is now too bloated, incoherent and ineffectual to even do small things right. Like, say, launch a working website to undergird the president’s signature policy achievement.

Never mind the president’s vision of can-do government; the question that needs to be asked is if the government should do it.

Even if Obama were a more capable manager, it probably wouldn’t make any difference due to the size and scope of the government. One of the president’s closest political advisors, David Axelrod, admitted as much in an MSNBC interview in May.

“Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” Axelrod explained. That was intended as a defense of the president’s lack of knowledge about IRS harassment of conservative political groups. But it was actually an unwitting indictment of a government that’s grown so inconceivably large and complex as to defy any effective oversight whatsoever.

The president’s great sin was failing to recognize that reality. But Americans are catching on. A September Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans believe the government has too much power, and other polls suggest that the people’s confidence in the government to do anything right—to say nothing of the “big things”—is flagging.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, this could be a healthy development. As Americans grasp that a sprawling, unaccountable, ever-growing, overspending, debt-ridden leviathan in Washington won’t be capable of solving the problems we face, they may become more receptive to the case for leaner, more effective government, and creative solutions from the private sector.

Obama has occasionally paid lip service to reducing government, but his actions have consistently expanded it. Instead, he seems to have an unwavering and abiding faith in the power of more and more government action—more programs, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more spending, more mandates, more regulations and more control of the economy. It’s time he rethink that faith.

It may be hard to imagine Obama declaring, as Bill Clinton did in 1996, that “the era of big government is over.” But if he wants to salvage the remaining three years of his presidency, he should start figuring out how to make that ideal a reality.

Hamel is executive director of Public Notice, a nonprofit group focused on the economy and how government policy affects Americans’ financial well-being. Hamel served as deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for public and media affairs in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Funding, Debt Ceiling Fight An “Embarrassment” That Distracts From Fiscal Reality, Public Opinion

The recent debate over funding the government and raising the debt ceiling represents a collective failure by our leaders in Washington and a national embarrassment on the world stage. While many members of Congress and the president were busy scoring political points and making outlandish promises, they put our economy at immediate risk, lost sight of fiscal dangers in the future and diminished America’s standing in the world.  Rather than abiding by bipartisan spending limits and working to find a smarter way to implement them and heeding public sentiment on the need for further spending reforms, Congress wasted time on partisan bickering and the president repeatedly refused to negotiate on any of it.

Now, in the midst of a government shutdown and on the edge of default, Washington has cobbled together another short-term band-aid coupled with the promise of possible spending cuts and reforms down the road. It’s well-worn strategy in Washington that alleviates short-term pressure while building more for the next inevitable crisis. Despite a stated desire from both parties to halt governing crisis-to-crisis, these debates and this legislation only fuels that approach.

Though I’m hopeful this brush with disaster is enough to spur real action to implement needed reforms and smarter cuts, I remain skeptical until Washington takes concrete steps in that direction. Politics, inflammatory rhetoric and partisan pressure must take a backseat to responsible governing and budgeting.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Political Bickering Overshadows Fiscal Outlook, Economic Reality:

Fitch Ratings Put U.S. Credit Rating On Negative Watch, Citing “Political Brinksmanship” Among Other Reasons. “The U.S.’s AAA credit grade was placed on rating watch negative by Fitch Ratings, which cited the government’s failure to raise its borrowing limit as the Treasury’s deadline nears. ‘The political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default,’ Fitch, which is a jointly owned subsidiary of Paris-based Fimalac SA and New York-based Hearst Corp., said today in a statement. Fitch reiterated that it expects the debt ceiling to be raised.” (John Detrixhe, “U.S. AAA Rating Put on Negative Watch by Fitch on Delayed Budget,” Bloomberg, 10/15/13)

Congressional Budget Office Projects “Much Gloomier Long Term Outlook For Federal Budget Deficits Than Its Year-Ago Forecast.” “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday projected a much gloomier long-term outlook for federal budget deficits than its year-ago forecast. The CBO now predicts that federal debt held by the public will rise to 100 percent of gross domestic product by 2038 under its ‘extended baseline scenario.’ (It’s around 73 percent now.) Last year it predicted the ratio would fall to 52 percent over the quarter-century in the baseline scenario. This is, as the CBO notes, a ‘very large’ forecast revision.” (Peter Coy, “Why the CBO Dramatically Darkened Its Budget Outlook,” Businessweek, 9/17/13)

Majority Of Americans Support Spending Cuts With Debt Limit Increase:

Bloomberg Poll: 61 Percent Support Spending Cuts With Debt Limit Increase. “Americans by a 2-to-1 ratio disagree with President Barack Obama’s contention that Congress should raise the U.S. debt limit without conditions. Instead, 61 percent say that it’s “right to require spending cuts when the debt ceiling is raised even if it risks default,” because Congress lacks spending discipline, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Sept. 20-23.” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Americans Reject by 61% Obama Demand for Clean Debt Vote,” Bloomberg, 9/26/13)

Public Notice Poll: 58 Percent Support Spending Cuts With Debt Limit Increase. “A new poll found that a majority of Americans support spending cuts in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling ahead of negotiations over the federal government’s funding and debt ceiling. The poll, sponsored by Public Notice and conducted by the Tarrance Group, also found significant pessimism about the economy’s prospects and a distrust of government debt and spending. … Fifty-eight percent of those polled said any increase in the debt ceiling should be at least matched with an equal decrease in government spending.” (Andrew Evans, “Poll: Americans Want Spending Cuts in Exchange for Debt Ceiling Increase,” Washington Free Beacon, 9/4/13)

Fiscal Fights Draws International Scorn, Mocking:

From Mexico: Washington Looks Like “Spoiled Little Rich Kids.” “The word many Mexicans now use to describe Washington reflects a familiar mix of outrage and exasperation: berrinche. Technically defined as a tantrum, berrinches are also spoiled little rich kids, blind to their privilege and the effects of their misbehavior.” (Damien Cave, “Viewing U.S. in Fear and Dismay,” The New York Times, 10/15/13)

From Greece: “Our American Friends Are Getting A Taste Of The Same Medicine.” “’It just goes to show that it’s not only Greece that has irresponsible and shortsighted politicians,’ said Ioanna Kalavryti, 34, a teacher in Athens. ‘We’ve been held hostage by our reckless politicians, and the interests they serve, for more than three years now. I guess our American friends are getting a taste of the same medicine.’” (Damien Cave, “Viewing U.S. in Fear and Dismay,” The New York Times, 10/15/13)

The New York Times Headline: “Seeing Its Own Money At Risk, China Rails At U.S.” “China has become shrill in its criticism of the fiscal train wreck in the United States, arguing that the answer to a potential government default is to begin creating a “de-Americanized world.” (Mark Landler, “Seeing Its Own Money At Risk, China Rails At U.S.,” The New York Times, 10/15/13)