President Obama's performance

By Jack H. Knowlan Sr.

Since I classify myself as a conservative Democrat, I get a little annoyed at all the phone calls I have been getting asking, "Do you think President Obama is doing a good job?" This is a question that cannot be answered yes or no, so I decided to review a few of his many activities.

I have been around for a long time, but I do not think I ever remember having so many crises and catastrophes or seeing the country so divided and so many things to blame a president for.

I am definitely against deficit spending and a $12.9 trillion national debt. Part of this is due to two wars President Obama inherited that are expensive but deemed necessary by our military commanders. I believe President Obama has taken everything into consideration and is determined to end the wars and get out as soon as possible. (Give him an A.)

The early recession due to the housing foreclosures by large banks and mortgage companies was due to lack of government regulation and bad loans. Most of them went broke in the process. The laws regulating loans were canceled years ago under previous administrations. The government's early bailout programs to the banks, mortgage companies, insurance and auto industries were started before the Obama administration and were handled very poorly both before and after. The reasoning was that the small banks needed the larger ones to continue operating, getting loans so they could make money available to individuals and small business' in their local area. I think they made a hasty decision and it could have been handled better. (Give him a B+.)

The stimulus programs: I did not believe in the stimulus programs from the beginning because they are short term, but I have to admit they have been beneficial for badly needed construction, repairs and many other things in our schools, cities, counties and state, and in many cases have kept the economy from getting much worse. (Another A.)

The Affordable Care Act: Recently in Speak Out someone said he believed we should not have any political parties, that people and politicians should vote for what they believe in and not vote just to be loyal to a political party. I agree, because that is exactly what happened to our health care reform bill. The Democrats wanted a bill that would lower the cost of medical care so everyone could afford it. The only way that could happen was to pass a government option bill similar to Medicare that would allow government to control the exorbitant, excessive charges so everyone could afford health care. The Republican Senate was adamantly opposed to anything giving big government power to regulate anything. So we ended up with the Senate compromise version forcing small business to furnish insurance for employees and telling the insurance companies what they can or cannot do. I agree with a lot of Republicans and conservative Democrats that the Affordable Care Act is a worthless pile of paper and is not going to solve anything, much less make health care affordable. I blame President Obama because he was so desperate to pass a health care bill that he gave in to the opposition. He and the Democrats would have been better off to have put a simple government option bill up for a vote and let the Republicans get blamed for defeating it. (I give him a C+.)

Deficit spending and the economy: President Obama is dedicated to lowering the disparity between the poor and the filthy rich millionaires and billionaires. Up until the present, his main emphasis has been the health care reform, trying to boost the economy and prevent going deeper into a depression. Unfortunately, the economy is not going to improve until we get more manufacturing jobs back in this country. Since the United States reportedly pays the highest wages in the world, there is little chance we will get competitive on manufacturing unless unions and other workers decide to lower their hourly wage or other countries decide to raise their wages. Also unfortunately, much of the money we print to pump up the economy devalues the dollar and causes inflation so workers need more to get by, and much of it goes out of the country as a trade deficit. Eliminating deficit spending is a two-way street. You have to keep spending under control and collect enough income taxes to pay for your spending.

Right now both sides of the street are out of control. Much of the spending on wars, boosting the economy, catastrophes (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, mudslides and now the oil spill) all require the president's attention. Needless to say, the victims are never satisfied, and President Obama has been well-informed and has kept catastrophic spending at a reasonable level.

Trying to run the country on taxes collected from small business and working-class people who have taxes withheld from their salaries is partly responsible for our trade deficit. Many corporations making billions keep expanding, getting bigger, charging off expansion expense and paying very little tax. The executive officers and other millionaires have plenty of loopholes passed by the previous administrations. President Obama plans to change this but has a rough road ahead. (I give him an A for intentions, a B for results).

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: I can't think of anything worse that could happen to a president, and I am afraid the worst is yet to come. This devastating occurrence, even if it were stopped today, has caused ecological and environmental damage to the entire Gulf that will undoubtedly take a decade to get back to normal, if ever. Since this is supposed to be a huge dome of oil and high-pressure gas, it may be impossible to stop until a lot of oil and gas are removed, which may take up to a year. This is a clear case of big business gone awry with little interference or regulation from big government. I said earlier that we would soon be hearing a lot of "Where is Obama?" and, sure enough, there is the Washington Examiner, which editorialized about Obama: "His top priority is not to stop the spill but to shift the blame." I wonder if the Examiner really thinks a president should or could stop the spill.

I think President Obama is putting all the pressure possible on BP to stop the oil since it has the technology to do it. The only other possibility would be to bring in some other corporations like ExxonMobil or Transocean to drill more wells to relieve the pressure. Maybe Obama was a little slow getting organized in the cleanup operation, but basically BP is responsible, and I am sure he was trying to get them to handle it. I think he now has good people (Admiral Thad Allen) in charge of it. They are doing a good job, but it is going to be a long, drawn-out process, regardless of how much equipment and how many people are involved. I have not heard Obama "trying to shift the blame." It is too bad some people use this catastrophe to bad-mouth the president. (I give him an A- for his efforts.)

There are many other conflicts and problems the president has to get involved in. Just to name a few: Nuclear ambitions, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, North Korea sinking South Korea's battleship, the Arizona immigration problem and the "Don't ask, don't tell" military problem.

One thing I can say about President Obama: He does not make quick decisions. He looks into all the possibilities and the results of each and makes a logical decision as to what should be done. (I give him an A for these types of decisions.)

So when people ask me "Is President Obama doing a good job?" my answer is this: With all the problems he inherited, all the opposition he has received and all the crises and catastrophes that have come up, he is probably doing as well as any human being could do.

Jack H. Knowlan Sr. is a Jackson resident.