Redefine Change » Barack Obama

A $100k Pay Freeze vs. $160 Milli Inauguration

Brandon — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:04:04 +0000

Newly inaugurated President Obama rolled into office this week, and quickly announced a pay freeze for his top staff members making over 100k. While this move is inline with the President’s pledge to set “a new standard of openness” in Washington it seems a little ironic that it comes on the heels of the most expensive Worship Your Boss Day (ahem, inauguration) in our nation’s history.

Lauren Farrely of DailySkiff.com notes that $49 million of the estimated $170 million came directly from tax payers AND that the largest private donors were Wall Street fat cats who benefited from the $700 billion bailout last September. It’s nice to know that “a new standard of openess” means we, average American taxpayers, take the brunt of the largest bailout AND inauguration bill ever.

NY Daily News, in referencing Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglas, writes “the committee’s expenses will be greater than previous years because of Obama’s commitment to make the event as open and accessible as possible to the public.” I don’t want to be a hater, but I’m a numbers guy and something doesn’t sit well with me when token gestures are used to distract us from obvious truths, in an effort to inflate the sails of campaign claims that seem to be losing their air really quickly.

To echo Ms. Farrely conclusion, “Obama’s plan to restore fiscal discipline to Washington by ending wasteful spending has gotten off to a questionable start.”

Moving Forward

If we believe in balancing the budget we need to continue to insist that our representatives do not pay for things our country cannot afford. Also, we need to recognize the relationship between the size of the Federal Government and the degree of entitlement it has to tax and spend out of our pockets. I believe history shows that the bigger the government the more confidence it has to encroach unduly into our wallets and bank accounts. If you want to participate in working for a smaller government I encourage you to Meetup.com to look for groups in your area that have similar interests. If you know of any groups or are already participating in some please feel free to leave them in the comments!

What’s your take on Obama’s plan?

Brandon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:30:23 +0000

Initially, I heard his “infrastructure/stimulus” plan was going to be in the $600 billion range. However, yesterday NPR reported that the plan could be north of $800 billion. Does anyone think this will work? I want to hope the best, but considering the troubles miring the use of TARP funds, I doubt the effectiveness of another plan that has an even bigger dollar tag.

Obama’s change is starting to take shape

Brandon — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:39:23 +0000

And sadly (expectedly?) it’s looking more like the same. Don’t agree? Consider the following as evidence. In a stump speech last September, Obama said, “George Bush and Dick Cheney may have perfected the art of special-interest driven partisan politics, but they didn’t invent it. It was there before they came into office, and if we’re not careful it will be there after they leave. That’s what’s at stake in this election.” (Translation, the Clintons promoted special-interest driven partisan politics and electing Hillary would guarantee more of the same.)

So, what is he doing to implement this newly found change during this transitional period? First, he appoints two former high-end Clinton aides, Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta, to top advisory roles. Second, he appears to have chosen Hillary, herself, to represent the United States as Secretary of State. As one blogger put it, “The problem with the Clintons is that they’re just so exhausting…I mean, doesn’t the rest of the world hate us enough already?” Third, (in a move that squashes the faint hope conservatives were clinging to that at least Warren Buffet is/was advising him on the economy),

we have this gem from Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, “I don’t know what the number is going to be, but it’s going to be a big number. It has to be. The point is to, kind of, get people back on track and startle the thing into submission.” Apparently, the “change” millions of Americans put their hope in is really just the same old players spewing the same old nonsense. Remember the Treasury’s reassuring justification for the bailout in September? “It’s not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number.” Uh, mister potato head, things have deteriorated since then, what makes you think another “really big number” will solve the problem now?

Thanks for nothing, America. Change we can believe in is really turning out to be more of the same crap. If this continues another two or three election cycles (more, less?) I fear we’ll all be doomed. Not necessarily because our leaders are trying to screw things up, it’s just that they, and we, continue to think and vote like they are smarter than the 800 pound gorillas in the room, like deficits, trade imbalances, over-supplied money and meddling foreign policy. (And before you McCain supporters chime in remind yourself that he was probably even dumber than Obama, as hard as that is to comprehend, on the economy and had a disposition that was even more partisan and malleable to the wrong influences.)

Moving forward

It’s beyond encouraging us to “contact our Senators”, blah, blah, blah. We can do that until we are blue in the face. But as long as we keep electing the same old goons to office we continue to guarantee the same two-faced responses. It’s time we stop pointing the finger at our elected leaders, blaming them for our problems, and take a long, hard look in the mirror. After you take that long, hard look, splash some cold water in your face (maybe give your self a slap or two on the cheeks – you know like a boxer going into the ring) and try to awake yourself to the fact that we are culpable in our political problems. After all, we are the ones voting every four years. The sooner you realize that you, whether democrat or republican, continue to get played by the same political hacks every four years, the sooner we can begin to anticipate more substantive change to come to our political system. Let’s encourage each other to continue to kick our addiction to false, promised hope every four years. Personalities don’t save nations or reverse their course. Principles and common sense, or adherence to them, do.