The editors at Foreign Policy magazine used the occasion of the first anniversary of Barack Obama’s election as president to ask a “a group of experts” to grade President Obama’s foreign policy performance.   I was honored to be among the graders.

My B-minus was exactly in line with the consensus:  “Obama scored only an average of a B-: five As, nine Bs, four Cs, and five Ds.”

President Barack Obama inherited two unpopular wars and a global financial crisis. Despite mostly continuing President George W. Bush’s policies, he’s rebooted America’s image in the world and avoided most of the landmines. His top-level foreign policy staff — from Vice President Joe Biden to National Security Advisor Jim Jones to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates to the State Department’s Anne-Marie Slaughter — is superb. While I seriously questioned his choice of Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state, she’s mostly been solid. That said, he’s made some serious missteps on the security front with Afghanistan and Iran, and his relationship with Europe is not nearly as strong as it should be, given the warmth with which his election was received.

Afghanistan: C-. Obama carried out his campaign pledge to send more troops and to put more emphasis on the war but he quickly lost confidence and now seems mired in a struggle over grand strategy. He fired a competent general to replace him with another, presumably to double-down on counterinsurgency, and turned around three months later to question his own general’s recommendations for carrying out the obvious implications of said strategy.

Europe: B. Obama came into office with a huge popularity boost and was viewed as a breath of fresh air after eight years of Bush. But he’s fumbled the “special relationship” with Britain and has raised serious doubts in Eastern Europe. See my recent article for a detailed explanation.

Iran: C+. Jim Jones’ pronouncement that we could live with a nuclear Iran was a welcome step down from the previous talk about it being “unacceptable.” Unfortunately, the situation has been largely bungled from there, with Obama having seemingly returned to his campaign trail Pollyannaish view of the power of chit-chat.

My colleague Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, also gave him a B-minus.

President Barack Obama’s momentous election heralded a change in U.S. foreign policy and raised expectations of revolutionary developments around the globe. He certainly lifted the dialogue to a new and higher moral level and promised engagement. But progress has been evolutionary, not revolutionary, because U.S. policy is rooted in national interests that do not change dramatically with a change in the occupant of the White House. This has been difficult for people around the world to understand. Regarding the Middle East and the Muslim world in general, Obama’s rhetoric has resonated more abroad than at home. He must change the discussion at home, not just to ensure Israel’s security but also guarantee implementation of Palestinian rights within a tight time frame. On Iran and India, he missed an opportunity to give Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a larger canvas to ply his skills by handing over Iran to a separate envoy and ceding to India’s pressures to exclude that country from the important dialogue on Afghanistan. Its problems can only be solved by taking a regional approach and drawing in the major neighbors: India, Iran, Pakistan, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, Russia, and China. Restricting Holbrooke to Afghanistan and Pakistan reduced his ability to move all the chess pieces in the game.

Also, in Afghanistan, there is no savvy civilian equivalent of Gen. Stanley McChrystal representing the transatlantic view and strengthening the hand of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry with his Afghan hosts. (Paging “Dr.” Ryan Crocker!) And no Afghan voice has been brought into the discussion of the Afghan strategy. There is still time to save the situation before domestic electoral agendas take over in 2010 and then again in 2011. America’s first “global president” who promised the world an impossible dream must strive to avoid settling for the politically possible. He inherited multiple chess games and is moving from crisis to crisis at home and abroad. So, how well has he done? As my high school principal in Rawalpindi, the Rev. “Paddy” Byrne, used to pronounce on most report cards: Needs Improvement. For his high aims but relatively slow results to date, one can give Obama an A for effort but only a C+ for promised actions to date. Overall score: B-. This is an interim grade. The spring semester might produce better results at home and perhaps abroad.

Feel free to provide your grades and analysis in the comments below.

Back when talks about bailing out General Motors started one potential issue was that GM would “encouraged” to make decisions based on political considerations vs. a sound business plan. Looks like there is evidence for such concerns with this story of how Montana’s Congressional Representative and two Senators are pushing to get a contract reinstated with a Montana palladium mine.

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg was no fan of the $58 billion federal rescue of General Motors Co., saying he worried taxpayer money would be wasted and the restructuring process would be vulnerable to “political pressure.” Now the lawmaker says it’s his “patriotic duty” to wade into GM’s affairs.

Along with Montana’s two Democratic senators, the Republican congressman is battling to get GM to reinstate a contract with a Montana palladium mine nullified in bankruptcy court. “The simple fact is, when GM took federal dollars, they lost some of their autonomy,” Mr. Rehberg says.

Translation: I might lose votes next election so whether reinstating this contract makes sound business sense or not, I’m going to use my influence to get in reinstated and screw the tax payers.

Federal support for companies such as GM, Chrysler Group LLC and Bank of America Corp. has come with baggage: Companies in hock to Washington now have the equivalent of 535 new board members — 100 U.S. senators and 435 House members.

Yes, and those 535 new board members don’t answer to shareholders, they answer to their constituents. Obviously these new board members are going to be making very good business decisions. Just look at the U.S. budget….uhhhmmm…look at Social Security….hmmm…Medicare, wait no don’t look! In fact, these aren’t the droids you are looking for either. Move along now.

Some more juicy bits from the article,

In May, even before the government’s ownership became official, lawmakers erupted when GM disclosed it planned to produce a new subcompact car at its factories in China. Under congressional pressure, GM dropped those plans and promised instead to retool an existing U.S. facility in Michigan, Wisconsin or Tennessee for the new model.

Lawmakers from those states demanded and received high-level meetings in Washington to quiz GM on the criteria for site selection and to tout their states. GM in the end picked a site in Michigan.

That same month, GM dealer Pete Lopez in Spencer, W.Va., received notice that GM was giving him just over a year to shut down his Chevy, Pontiac and Buick dealership, which he’d acquired two years earlier. GM’s move to shutter more than 1,300 dealerships — about one-quarter of its network — was central to its restructuring because it cleared out underperforming showrooms and brought the network more in line with its shrunken sales.

With an assist from his mayor, Mr. Lopez took his complaint straight to one of his state’s senators, Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee.

Sen. Rockefeller sent a letter to GM headquarters on Mr. Lopez’s behalf, according to a staff aide. He arranged for Mr. Lopez to come testify before a Senate panel in early June, alongside GM Chief Executive Frederick “Fritz” Henderson. The senator introduced the two men, giving Mr. Lopez a chance to make a personal pitch.

[…]

In addition to the dealership issue, lawmakers have jumped into a union fight that pits GM and Chrysler against two trucking companies that haul new cars around the country. The auto makers want to give some of the work to cheaper nonunion contractors. But that raised the ire of lawmakers who support the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Rep. Dale Kildee, a Democrat from Michigan, sent letters on Sept. 30 to the chief executives of both GM and Chrysler, demanding they explain their positions and advising them to stick with their unionized carriers. At least four other lawmakers sent similar letters.

[…]

GM for years was supplied by the Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co., which bills itself as the country’s only supplier of the precious metal. In early July, Frank McAllister, the mine’s chief executive, received news that GM, as part of its bankruptcy proceedings, planned to sever its ties with Stillwater in favor of cheaper suppliers in Russia or South Africa.

“I thought, for heaven’s sake, this doesn’t make any sense,” says Mr. McAllister. “Taxpayer dollars are keeping GM alive, just so it can turn away from U.S. workers?”

[…]

“I was elected to represent the interests of Montana, not General Motors, which is something that GM should have considered before letting the federal government assume control of their company,” Rep. Rehberg said recently.

Government Motors the new welfare program of the Obama Administration.

Ron Rotunda and Peter Pham argue in today’s WaPo that it would violate the Constitution for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize while in office.

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months — questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

[...]

An opinion of the U.S. attorney general advised, in 1902, that “a simple remembrance,” even “if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of ‘any present of any kind whatever.’ ” President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit “its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns.” This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.

Adam Blickstein argues that this contention is absurd, noting that General H. Norman Schwarzkoft, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and others have accepted knightships and other awards whilst holding offices of trust with no complaint.  But that’s not much of a counter: Maybe nobody noticed before.

More to the point, though, he points to an old Newsmax article reporting Greenspan was in fact challenged on these grounds by Rep. Howard Phillips and wrote back with a note from the Fed’s chief attorney to wit:

Congress gave its consent to the acceptance of certain gifts and decorations in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (originally enacted in 1966). The Act provides as follows:

The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee.

The Act defines “decoration” to include “an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem or award.” The Department of Justice has ruled that an honorary knighthood is an “order” as permitted by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.

Rotunda and Pham do not make their argument out of pique; they quite charitably say Congress should provide their consent.  It turns out, they did so when Obama was five.

Howard Fineman piles on to the burgeoning — if thus far unfounded — Obama overexposed and Obama fatigue memes with an uncharacteristically harsh column.

In addition to contending Obama gives too many speeches with too little substance, her goes further:

There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. [...] Members of Obama’s own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won’t cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama’s measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major “reform” bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its “leadership.” It’s not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

It’s not entirely clear what “consequences” the president can mete out to members of his own party in an independent branch of government who fail to do as he wishes.  Aside from petty exclusion from the reindeer games that surround the Head of State trappings of the White House — signings, dinners, awards ceremonies, and the like — he needs them more than they need him.

The reason Obama needs to more clearly articulate what he wants isn’t to scare the Congress but rather to inspire the people.  By “going over Congress’ heads,” presidents can leverage their popularity to put pressure on the legislature.

But the truth may well be that, as personally popular as Obama remains, people aren’t necessarily enamored with the specific policies he wants and can’t be talked into changing their minds.  If that’s the case, then going on TV more won’t help.  But it’s not clear what else would.

A NYT/CBS poll finds that President Obama’s approval remains strong but support for his handling of key policy issues is dipping. The Republicans are not, however, gaining much ground.

At 56 percent, his approval rating is down from earlier in the year but still reasonably strong at this point compared with recent presidents.

More Americans are starting to credit his stimulus package with having helped to revive the economy. And Mr. Obama retains a decided advantage with the American public over Republicans on prominent issues, starting with health care.

The poll found that an intense campaign by Mr. Obama to rally support behind his health care plan — including an address to Congress, a run of television interviews and rallies across the country — appears to have done little to allay concerns. Majorities of respondents said that they were confused about the health care argument and that Mr. Obama had not done a good job in explaining what he was trying to accomplish. [...] But the poll suggests that Mr. Obama is in a decidedly more commanding position than Republicans on this issue as Congressional negotiations move into final stages. Most Americans trust Mr. Obama more than Republicans to make the right decisions on the issue; 76 percent said Republicans had not even laid out a clear health care plan. And by a lopsided margin, respondents said that Mr. Obama and not Republicans had made an effort to cross party lines and strike a deal that has the support of both parties. Two-thirds of respondents said they wanted Congress to come up with a bill supported by both sides.

At the same time, there has been a slip in confidence in Mr. Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. There is tepid support for maintaining troop strength there, much less increasing it, as his top commander in Afghanistan prepares to submit a request for additional forces. A majority of Americans do not want troops there for more than two years.

[...]

The percentage of people who approve of the way he has dealt with Afghanistan has dropped to 44 percent from 56 percent in April. The percentage of Americans who approve of his handling of the economy, at 50 percent, has dropped from 61 percent since April. In April, Mr. Obama had a 43-point advantage over Republicans in terms of who would make the right decisions on the economy; that has dropped to a 26-point advantage. Americans think the economy is on the mend, and there has been a 15-point increase, to 36 percent, in the percentage of Americans who said Mr. Obama’s stimulus package has improved the economy.

Congressional Republicans have an overall favorable rating of 30 percent, within the margin of error of where it has been all year (32, 29, and 28 in the previous surveys) in this poll. Congressional Democrats at at 47 percent which, again, is within the margin of error of where it has been all year (48, 50, and 47 in the previous surveys). So, the decline in Obama’s approval numbers (which are quite consistent with other recent presidents at this point in their first term) isn’t redounding to the benefit of the opposition party.

Republicans are making modest gains on issue areas but are still leagues behind the president. Again, though, that’s pretty typical: A president has to be doing a lousy job, indeed, to fall behind Congress in these things. Congress tends to be viewed with an esteem on par with used car salesmen.

Interestingly, those of us who think Obama is overexposed, making too many public appearances, are in a decided minority (35 percent) with 58 percent saying he’s making “the right number.” Only 4 percent think he’s making too few. (Interestingly, the Obama overexposed and Obama fatigue memes have been around since last summer’s campaign.)

Vice President Joe Biden told a partisan crowd that, if the Republicans win the House back in 2010, it would be “the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do.”  Karen Travers for ABC:

Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats. “If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware.

Republicans need to pick up 40 seats next November to take back control of the House. There are 49 seats currently held by Democrats in districts that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) won in last year’s presidential election.

Biden said these House seats are Republicans “one shot” at breaking the Obama administration’s agenda. But if Democrats can hold on to those seats, “the dam is going to break,” he said, and a new era of bipartisanship will begin. “All the hidden Republicans that don’t have the courage to vote the way they want to vote because of pressure from the party … it will break the dam and you will see bipartisanship,” Biden said.

Republicans welcomed the vice president’s assessment of the 2010 landscape. “What didn’t seem possible just a few months ago, appears to be the topic of conversation even within the upper echelons of the Obama White House,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It is interesting to hear Vice President Biden admit that the administration’s effort to double down on a partisan agenda of government takeovers could possibly mean the ‘end of the road’ for their political viability.”

While Biden’s statement is being portrayed as controversial, it’s axiomatic.  Unlikely as it is to happen, a Republican landslide wouldn’t so much be “the end of the road” as the Dead End sign one sees upon arrival.  While I expect the GOP to win back a substantial number of those seats — they’re low hanging fruit, ideologically disposed to vote Republican, not going to have Obama’s coattails helping the Democratic GOTV effort, and it’s traditional for the president’s party to lose seats in the midterms, anyway — it’s almost inconceivable that they’ll take them all back, much less win 40 seats and reverse their losses in the last two cycles.  But, if they did, it would be an indication of massive existing dissatisfaction with the direction Obama is leading the country.

As to the business about Republicans afraid to vote their mind, I’m rather dubious. While the party leadership holds a lot of power in terms of committee assignments and the ability to get one’s bill up for consideration and offer amendments, most Members are more afraid of their constituents.  If they think voting for Obama’s programs is going to get them defeated, they’ll oppose regardless of their conscience.  But it’s hard to imagine a Republican Member who, upon the GOP picking up only 25 seats in the midterms, will suddenly decide he likes liberal policies after all.

I usually ignore the dozens of political spam emails that cross my inbox every day, but one caught my eye today with the headline “Obama Plans To Desecrate 9-11″, I couldn’t help but wonder what that closet Muslim/Kenyan/Filopino/Indonesian/Communist/Nazi/Son of Malcolm X was up to today. Clicking through got me to this article, in which I’ve learned that this “desecration” apparently has to do with Obama declaring September 11 and “national day of service.” Here’s a press release:

The President gave a broad and passionate speech on the power of volunteers to transform lives and tackle deep-rooted social problems. Recalling the heroism of the first responders and the outpouring of compassion Americans displayed after the terror attacks, the President urged American to rekindle that spirit of neighbor helping neighbor that was so strong after 9/11.

“Volunteerism is strong in the country. But the truth of the matter is, the farther we’ve gotten away from 9/11, that memory has begun to fade,” the President said. “And my call to people is, there’s always a need. You should be volunteering not because of 9/11, but you should be volunteering because our country needs you on a regular basis. And so today I call upon our fellow citizens to devote 4,000 hours over your lifetime in service to your country. You’ll become a better person for it, and our society will be more healthy as a result of it.”

Oh, wait– my mistake. That was a press release from President Bush from last year.

Look, anyone who follows politics for any length of times knows that there are tons of meaningless, silly “Days of Service” occasions. Last year’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was a “Day of Service.” Inauguration Day was a “Day of Servcice.” There have been random days of the week declared a “Day of Service.” They’re part and parcel of our modern pomp and circumstance. By and large, Americans ignore them, and I think this attitude on the part of my countrymen is a wise one.

President Obama, seeing that he is taking a beating in the polls, and that health care is starting to founder took to the pages of the New York Times to lay out the case for health care reform. I think he did a rather bad job of it. He could have done it with far, far fewer words, IMO. Anyhow, lets take a look at what he wrote,

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her.

I hate it when politicians do this. This is something politicians do all the time, put a face on the issue. One can argue it is to show the issue impacts people’s lives. Well no kidding. Most of what the government does impacts people’s lives. So I find this explanation weak. What I think it is, is an appeal to emotions. “Don’t pass my legislation and you are going to make people like Lori Hitchcock suffer.” I find it rather dishonest since it skirts the actual issues with reforming health care and instead is an attempt to get people to make a decision based on emotion instead.

However, there is a second bit of dissembling here as well. Of course Lori Hitchcock can’t get insurance, she has a pre-existing condition. Insurance cannot and was never designed to cover pre-existing conditions. Its like saying, I can’t cut down a tree with a spoon therefore we need national legislation so that we can cut down trees with spoons. Really? Are you just dishonest or stupid? James laid out the reasoning by looking at car insurance. If you get into a wreck then buy insurance the insurance company is not going to cover your “pre-existing” wreck of a car. Why? The accident already happened, there is no question of “if you get into an accident” you were already in one. Same thing here.

Now maybe we should figure out a way to cover pre-existing conditions, but is insurance really the right vehicle for doing that? Maybe there is some other policy we could put in place to deal with it, or not. But to say insurance companies are being bad in this case is just irresponsible and dishonest pablum. The insurance companies are looking out for their shareholders and possibly even their workers. That is not bad, that is being a good corporation.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

Wait one minute. Not all of those 46 million are people with pre-existing conditions. Some of that 46 million are people who have elected not to have health care. Some don’t even need it. Some do. To throw them all in and pretend like it is due to the vile depredations of health insurance companies is like blaming ADM for starvation in Africa.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

I’d love to see the mechanism for this. For example, suppose I like my current employer provide insurance, but I lose my job and my coverage. Then what? What if the public option or whatever takes it place doesn’t offer the coverage I had? What then?

In places like France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland they have choice and health care that will follow them. However, there is no public option, and no employer provided health care. In France health care is provided by non-profit health insurance funds, and in the Netherlands and Switzerland via competing health insurance companies.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

As I noted earlier, if there are billions and billions to be saved in Medicare and Medicaid, then start there. Hard to argue with clamping down on waste, fraud, and abuse, and I bet the Republicans would get behind it as well. But instead we have to have this massive pile of crap legislation that is hundreds and hundreds of pages long that nobody can read by themselves and who knows what is in there.

Second, this is just not in line with what the non-partisan CBO says about much of the legislation currently out there. The view is that the current legislation will add to costs and any savings are small or years down the road which we can’t wait for. In short, this paragraph is just…well its just downright misleading.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies.

And here Obama reveals what he is really on about. Not controlling costs or the rate of growth in costs, but in throwing out the goodies to the voters. If the issue is saving money and controlling costs and moving towards providing the best quality health care that is sustainable…why spend any savings on the elderly? This is where the bulk of our costs are already. Spending even more here is just simply astoundingly wrong.

This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors.

So…we spend more today so we can keep spending more tomorrow? Is that the argument?

And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Look, more free stuff for seniors.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition.

Yes, yes we get it already Mr. President those insurance companies are evil and their executives are agents of Satan. Never mind that by separating out those who have pre-existing conditions insurance companies are doing precisely what they are supposed to be doing: providing insurance for those who are healthy in the event of becoming unhealthy. I don’t doubt there are insurance companies that engage in bad behavior such as trying to deny valid claims, but dealing with pre-existing conditions is not one of them.

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.

No, what is truly scary is making an already unsustainable and dysfunctional system even worse. We are looking at spending considerably more money than we currently are and any saving that reform provides President Obama is promising to spend on seniors.

Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

Aside from the last part, none of this will likely change under the reform plans President Obama endorses. In fact, the last part will likely result in an increase in premiums and maybe even the deficit.

In the end, this isn’t about politics.

I love it when someone tells a bald faced lie. Of course this is about politics. It was one of his big promises during the campaign. If it isn’t about politics then why campaign on it. I’d also offer this suggestion, when you are trying to sell the public on something, try not to close with such an obvious lie.

Looks like the Obama Administration is testing the waters on the idea of raising taxes on the middle class,

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

[…]

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama’s intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama’s proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

“There is a lot that can happen over time,” Summers said, adding that the administration believes “it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what.”

Of course, raising taxes would mean that President Obama not going to keep his promise of not raising taxes on the middle class. This shouldn’t come as a big shock as he has already raised the cigarette tax, which means higher taxes on people in the middle class. Also, President Obama has gone back on his promise not to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 above the Clinton era tax levels.

“If we want an economy that’s going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it’s going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform,” Geithner said. “We’re not at the point yet where we’re going to make a judgment about what it’s going to take.”

Well sort of. This is really actually political spin. One reason why higher deficits today can mean lower growth in the future is that there may very well be higher taxes in the future. Of course, there is also the interest rate issue as well and crowding out. These also reduce growth. And lets be clear, the reason why it is going to be hard is because President Obama and his Administration have run up the deficit quite a bit. They have spent lots of money and have promised to spend quite a bit more as well.

Update: Commenter Sam points to this press conference with Robert Gibbs denying that there is some possibility of a tax increase on the middle class.

WASHINGTON – The White House spokesman says President Barack Obama is committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning less than $250,000.

Robert Gibbs restated that assurance Monday after two top White House officials suggested over the weekend that they could not rule out tax increases as the administration struggles to cut the budget deficit in half in the coming years.

Well of course unless you’re a smoker, but then you’re icky anyways.

Commenter Rick Almeida asks,

Did Obama really promise not to raise taxes on those making over $250,000, beyond letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire?

Yes.

Sen. Obama believes that responsible candidates must put forward specific ideas of how they would pay for their proposals. That is why he would repeal a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s.

- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.

This was written by Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, both were working for the Obama campaign. It is clear that this was something approved of by then Candidate Obama.

Bill Pascoe, veteran of two federal campaigns against Barack Obama, bemoans the rise of the Birthers:

I’ve held fire for the last several months as I’ve watched the so-called “Birther” movement gain steam.

At first it was amusing, like playing a drinking game — you know, like taking a shot every time Chris Matthews explains why he insists on pronouncing the former Vice President’s name “CHEE-knee.”

It’s not amusing anymore.

[...]

National Review Founder William F. Buckley, Jr., Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, conservative historian and philosopher Russell Kirk, and American Enterprise Institute President William Baroody took it upon themselves secretly to meet at The Breakers hotel in Palm Beach, where they decided Welch and the Birchers would have to be excommunicated from the Conservative Movement, lest their lunacy taint reasonable and responsible conservative political activity.

Were Buckley alive today, is there any doubt he would have the same response to the Birthers?

Obviously, as the editors of his flagship magazine have already divined, the answer is, “None whatsoever.”

Birthers, just as obviously, are simply the current most virulent strain of the Paranoid Style in American Politics, just as Birchers were in Hofstadter’s day. No evidence can dissuade them from their delusion, any more than Popular Mechanics could quell the Truthers.

But they have indeed passed beyond being an amusingly silly footnote to contemporary politics and have become a thorn in the paw of the responsible, reasonable Right. As such, it is incumbent upon us to expel them — noisily and unequivocally, lest the media continue to treat them as representing a genuine faction of the right wing.

The CBO has analyzed some of the suggested methods for controlling health care costs, and the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) in particular. The findings so far is not all that good,

In particular, CBO reviewed draft legislation transmitted to the Congress by the Administration on July 17, 2009, titled the Independent Medicare Advisory Council Act of 2009. CBO estimates that enacting the proposal, as drafted, would yield savings of $2 billion over the 2010–2019 period (with all of the savings realized in fiscal years 2016 through 2019) if the proposal was added to H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced in the House of Representatives. This estimate represents the expected value of the 10-year savings from the proposal: In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized, for reasons discussed below, but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis.

So we can expect $2 billion in savings over 10 years, there is a large probability of no savings. One reason we might get no savings is that the President will have to either approve or disapprove of whatever recommendations IMAC makes. I can’t imagine a President having issues with his approval ratings and looking at re-election being too keen on implementing cost saving measures that could be used by an opponent as being harmful to the elderly. Remember a while back the cartoon of Bush pushing a wheelchair bound elderly person over a cliff regarding Social Security?

Now to be fair CBO does estimate greater savings past the 10 year window, but that isn’t going to help us for the shorter term with addressing the massive costs over the next 10 years of the current health care “reform” legislation. IMAC might be a good idea for longer term savings, but for shorter terms savings the numbers just aren’t there. Any attempt to claim otherwise is…well what are politicians best noted for?

And the CBO does offer some suggestions on how to use IMAC to get greater savings in the next 10 years.

• Setting explicit and feasible quantitative goals for reducing outlays in the Medicare program.
• Providing clear authority for the council to recommend broad changes in coverage, benefit design, and payment and delivery systems.
• Incorporating an explicit fall-back mechanism (such as an across-the board reduction in payments) if goals for cost reduction are not met.
• Requiring independent verification of the expected reduction in program spending from implementing the recommendations.
• Expanding the direction and authority of the council to include making recommendations for changes to Medicaid and other government health care programs, with specific goals set for each program.
• Expanding the council’s mandate to include making recommendations for changes to the broader health care system. (Some such changes might be implemented through federal regulation, while others might require future legislation.)
• Ensuring that the composition of the council is heavily weighted toward medical and other health policy experts who will actively seek to improve the efficiency of the health care system.
• Ensuring the council’s access to the resources necessary to develop and test ideas for cost reduction. These resources would include access to appropriate program data, the ability to tap technical expertise available through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and explicit authority to coordinate such work with the Secretary of
• HHS.
• Providing mandatory funding to enhance the independence of the council.

The CBO indicates while there would be larger savings, they would be limited by the time frame in terms of implementation (the council wouldn’t be created until 2015, and wouldn’t start issuing recommendations until 2016). So the idea that IMAC is going to have much impact over the next 10 years is not very likely.

OMB Director Peter Orszag basically agrees that IMAC is a longer term cost containment strategy.

The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. (Indeed, under the Administration’s approach, the IMAC system would not even begin to make recommendations until 2015.) Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term.

Now compare this to President Obama’s press conference from July 22nd,

In addition to making sure that this plan doesn’t add to the deficit in the short term, the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run. Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care. That’s why the nation’s largest organizations representing doctors and nurses have embraced our plan.

We also want to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare on an annual basis — a proposal that could save even more money and ensure long-term financial health for Medicare. Overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the AARP has endorsed our reform efforts.

The above paragraphs aren’t really true when considering what the OMB Director and the CBO Director are saying. The IMAC proposal will likely not prevent increasing the size of the deficit in the short run.

As often as he brings down ridicule upon himself, one wonders at times why Obama and his handlers keep letting “Talking Joe” Biden speak in public. James Lileks writes in the New York Post that “Biden’s ‘gaffes’ are anything but — they’re simply what the administration is really thinking. Truer words have never been babbled.”

That seems right. There are only two rational explanations why they administration doesn’t muzzle Biden. The first is that his permanent comedy tour is a useful distraction from the administration’s more pressing difficulties, so his fairly loose leash is just to allow him to play court jester.

The other, more likely reason is that the Vice President is ideally suited to release the administration’s trial balloons. We’ve come to expect a rapid “clarification” or outright denial of his howlers, so no-one really takes anything he says seriously until someone who actually speaks for the administration confirms it. That (rarer) occurence only happens when he says something that doesn’t bring down the house.

In short, Lileks is right. We ought not fall into the trap of dismissing Biden’s many “gaffes.” When it comes right down to it, most are precisely what the White House really believes. Which isn’t funny at all.

The Churrascaria Edition OTB Caption Contest™ is now over.

Jason Reed (ITALY POLITICS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

✰ THE WINNERS ✰

First: Brian J. – So that’s the thrill Matthews was talking about.

Second: charles austin – Alex Delarge: “Vidi well little brother, vidi well.”

Third: yetanotherjohn – I have always been concerned with the unique situations of women.

✰ HONORABLE MENTION ✰

Martin – Obama : “I could’ve done with this ass instead of the one I picked to be vice-president.”

Stormy Dragon – “Like many Americans, I too enjoy the bounty of an ample posterior. About that this administration will not prevaricate…”

✰ DODD’S END OF THE DOCKET ✰

Paul in CO – Mmmhmm….I’d like to put my porkulus in her stimulus!

charles austin – President Obama contemplates the audacity of a grope.

Rodney Dill should return from on vacation later this week.

With the estimable Rodney Dill on his “usual summer hiatus,” James asked me to fill in if I could. As it happens I’m on vacation, too, but we wouldn’t want to go half the month with no contest. So, without further ado, here’s your supplemental OTB Caption Contest™:

/Jason Reed (ITALY POLITICS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

UPDATE (James): Via Ace, here’s a related photo:

Winners will be announced Monday PM(ish).

“We should not allow Republicans to marry. It undercuts the entire institution of marriage.” Michael Reynolds of Sideways Mencken