Breaking .. Natural Evolution

CNN is reporting that Larry Summers is leaving the President's economic team, as part of a 'natural evolution,' in the composition of that team.  That leaves only Geithner from the President's original economic team, and he's been receiving quite a few mixed signals.

Maybe Boehner had an effect after all.

As If There Weren't Enough Reasons To Dump Reid

Via Politico:

'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had an unusual form of praise for New York's junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, this morning at the fundraiser Mayor Bloomberg hosted for him at his townhouse - referring to her as "the hottest member" as she sat just a few feet away, according to three sources. ... First Bloomberg spoke, then Sen. Chuck Schumer, and then Reid, according to the sources. Reid praised Schumer at length, discussing how he could have run for governor - and won - in 2006, but didn't, and instead accepted the Nevada senator's entreaties to run the DSCC. Then he turned his attention to Gillibrand, saying something about how "many senators are known for many things," according to a source. He added, "We in the Senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the hottest member."'

 The Washington Post has this comment from the Reid campaign:

'Reid spokesman Jim Manley told Politico, "What can I say, she made The Hilll's 'Most Beautiful' list. Of course he also went on to praise her skill and tenacity and described her as an effective member of the New York delegation as well."'

Well that just makes it all better doesn't it?  Don't you just love Reid (he of the 'light-skinned negro' sans 'negro dialect' comments)?  He's a peach.  Apparently, Gillibrand will have to do without a public apology, because she's beautiful, and sexism just isn't as bad to Reid.  Of course, Hispanics haven't received an apology from him either.

Reid's campaign against Angle is rated as a toss-up right now - hopefully, he'll be tossed out in the process.

Dreams of Anticolonialism

Dinesh D'Souza, president of King's College in New York and an Indian ex-pat, has published a fascinating little thesis on the roots of Obama's decision-making and philosophy at Forbes.com.  D'Souza hypothesizes that the president's search (recounted in Dreams From My Father) for identity and purpose in his father's history, profoundly influenced Obama's current political thinking.  More particularly, the senior Obama's anticolonial socialism and African economic nationalism, are at the root of Obama's rejection of American exceptionalism and his extended 'apology tour' to the rest of the world.  I would add, that if D'Souza is correct, at least in part, this interpretation would explain the Obama Administration's strange rejection of many of our traditional allies, while embracing nations which, if not actively our enemies, are not our friends.  D'Souza draws on his own extensive experience with the anticolonial movement that roiled India (and most 3d world countries) in the 1950s and 1960s.  The whole article is worth a careful read, but some extracts are below.

'What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father. So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself. An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future. ...

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." ...

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet. For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.'

Who's Paranoid Now?

From the increasingly rare file of excellent NY Times Op-Eds, we have this fascinating look at the political uses of charging the other guy as paranoid.

'Conservatives and libertarians dubbed Lee a “liberal eco-terrorist” inspired by a “green climate of hate.” They pointed out that he traced his political “awakening” to Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric. They cited an F.B.I. statement calling eco-vigilantes America’s “No. 1 domestic terrorism threat.” This was all a little ridiculous. But of course it was really an attempt to turn the tables on liberals, who have spent the last two years linking conservative rhetoric to hate crimes and antigovernment maniacs. (It’s a hard habit to break: the liberal site ThinkProgress.org quickly suggested that James Lee was actually a right-wing extremist, because his hostility to “parasitic human infants” extended to the children of illegal immigrants.). ... There’s the 32 percent of Democrats who blame “the Jews” for the financial crisis. There’s the 25 percent of African-Americans who believe the AIDS virus was created in a government lab. There’s support for state secession, which may have been higher among liberals in the Bush era than among Republicans in the age of Obama. And there’s the theory that the Bush White House knew about 9/11 in advance, which a third of Democrats endorsed as recently as 2007....But obsessing about the paranoia of the masses is often a way for American elites to gloss over their own, entirely nonsymbolic failures. In the Bush era attacking the conspiracy theories of the “angry left” made it easier for conservatives to avert their eyes from the disaster the Iraq war had become. Today, establishment liberals would much rather fret about the insanity of the Republican base than reckon with the unpopularity of Barack Obama’s domestic program.'

Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  Just ask Margaret Thatcher.

Closing thought: I wonder how many people will take this one seriously.

UPDATED: Leadership

UPDATE:
Apparently, the president figured that the best way to "do that [discuss the recent economic news]" was to give a last minute, barely audible, Rose Garden presser in which his main theme revolved around bashing the Republicans as still responsible for whatever goes wrong under his watch.  Good job attempt at leading Sir!

Original Post:
We are leaderless, and that's the biggest reason for a major revolt at the polls this November (emphasis mine).

'President Obama was largely invisible to the public, taking in 10 days of R&R in the posh Chilmark section of Martha’s Vineyard. When he re-emerges to the public on Sunday, he will be kicking off a series of high profile events that have little to do with the issue foremost on Americans’ minds: jobs. On Sunday the president will travel to New Orleans to commemorate the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. On Tuesday he will deliver only his second Oval Office address, discussing the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq. On Wednesday and Thursday, he and his administration will focus on kick-starting peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“We know he needs to be out there to talk about the economy next week,” a White House official told ABC News. “We haven’t yet figured out the way he’s going to do that.”'

Remember VJ Day

Perhaps the one thing that most of the post-WWII generations 'know' about VJ Day is something they probably don't know was associated with the VJ Day celebrations - the iconic kissing sailor photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt taken during the first celebrations in New York City. Girls had posters of it on their walls when I was in college, and most of the initial links from a quick Google search of VJ Day 2010 are about the kiss, a statue of it accompanied by a national kiss-in, etc.

The celebrations that followed the Japanese surrender, and a beautifully-staged kiss were both wonderful and memorable. But Victory (Victory over Japan) Day is a solemn remembrance of the many thousands of lives poured out in the second half of a near global struggle, to block the domination of many small and weak nations by one. I find it ironic that sixty-five years after, the only mention of these events in the popular US media relates to a single staged photograph. Of course, here in the US, there is often a sense of guilt mixed in with VJ Day celebrations, tied to Japan's forced surrender following the use of a terrible weapon on her civilian population. While the reasons for forcing an unconditional surrender out of Japan are well-known, and while there will probably never be a complete consensus on the decision to use the atom bomb, it would be appropriate to celebrate the end of the war and remember the dead.

Sadly, President Obama, indeed much of the country, seems totally apathetic about such memorials. Possibly, if forced into a speech about it, the president would find it necessary to belabor American sins, arrogance and pride, without remembering why we came to such a point and what necessitated the war. There is no excuse however, for the near total silence from the media and the population. Leaders in Canada, Great Britain, even Japan (for different reasons obviously) honor August 15th with wreaths, solemnity and remembrance. We would do well not to lightly throw away our own history.

"We renew our promise to never wage war, and we promise to do our utmost to achieve eternal world peace and to never repeat again the mistake of war."

Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan

Double Dip ... Polling

President Obama's poll numbers have dipped back into negative territory (actually, they've been there for most of the prior two weeks) in a big way with today's polling numbers.  The RCP average puts him at -3.3.  Only the Time Magazine poll (never a bell-weather) has him in positive territory at +4, and Rasmussen has fallen to -12 (likely voter poll).  Congress continues it's slow fall into the abyss at almost -50, while the Republicans are up over the Dems at +3.3.  The RCP average for direction of the country is -28.7.  Finally, the major toss-up elections are started to lean Republican, including major seats (e.g.: Boxer and Reid).  With less than 100 days to the mid-term election, the Democrats are fast-approaching a decision-point: stick with Obama or resist to save their own skins.  It's going to be an interesting Fall.

Another Quarter - Another Afghanistan Mission

Per the AP and Fox News: 'Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is heading to South Asia on a mission aimed at refining the goals of the nearly 9-year-old conflict in Afghanistan as fears mount about the war.'  We have consistently failed to establish a clearly stated mission in Afghanistan, adapting tactics to the situation as necessary, and we have yet to properly and fully source any of the stated missions to date.  Instead, we keep redefining the mission, accomplishing little in the way of long-term success as a result.  These are failures of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and must be rectified if we are to achieve success.  This is not to advocate that we blindly stick with a mission that we're unable to accomplish, or for which there is no political and public will, but we must find a mission that we can and will support.  Otherwise, there is little point to being there.

The Public's Latest Sobriety Treatment for the Government

Oh my, my, my.  The President's RCP average is down to -1.9, Congress is at -49.4, the GOP is up to +1.7, and the country overwhelmingly feels that the country is going in the wrong direction.  Worse for the President and Democrats, Independents are abandoning them almost across the board.  I'd like to crow, but the reality is that it's too late for crowing - the country bought into a pile of hogwash and spin in 2008, and we're going to be reaping the consequences, particularly economic consequences, for long after this Administration.  That's too serious for enjoyment.  Additionally, while many GOP candidates are performing extremely well now (e.g., Fiorina is now tied with Boxer in a dead heat), there is no overall agreement on an economic recovery plan within the GOP.  Winning in 2010 will provide a short-lived celebration without one.

In short, the public would generally agree that many politicians on all side fit this fine quote from 'MI-5' ('Spooks' in the UK): "You're just another bureaucrat with erectile dysfunction."

Change We Can Believe In - UPDATED

UPDATE: Now that the trial of the Governor-from-Hell, Blagojevich, has begun, questions about the role of the White House and presidential associates in 'helping' to pick candidates will continue to bubble up.  Just ask Paterson and Ford about the WH cherry-picking candidates in New York.

Hannity not-withstanding, it's pretty obvious that the vague White House offer, extended by the hand of Bill Clinton, to give Joe Sestak an unpaid advisory position for dropping out of the Democratic Senate primary (against Arlen Specter), will never land the White House in real legal trouble.  The real problem is the appearance that the White House that promised to usher in change, and clear out 'politics-as-usual,' is playing the usual game.  Gibbs' utter inability to give a straight answer to any specific question was on full display during yesterday's press briefing:

'White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Tuesday that Rep. Joe Sestak was not offered a spot on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board but refused to say what was dangled in front of the Democrat in an attempt to remove him from a Senate primary. ... Sestak indicated Friday he was offered a spot on the PIAB by former President Bill Clinton, who was acting on behalf of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  “I heard presidential board and I think it was Intel,” Sestak said to reporters, describing his conversation with Clinton.  White House counsel Bob Bauer said Friday that Sestak was offered a spot on “a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board.”  However, Sestak would have been ineligible for such a post. Sestak and the Obama administration both said the congressman would have kept his seat in the House if he took a spot on the PIAB. But the PIAB is comprised of individuals who are “outside the government.”'

Gibbs even seemed unable to explain why he couldn't give a specific answer on the contents of the explanatory memo issued last Friday by White House Counsel, Robert Bauer: '“Whatever’s in the memo is accurate,” Gibbs said, adding that he would “check.”'  To add to the White House's self-immolation, it appears that similar offers were made to Andrew Romanoff who is running as a Senate candidate in Colorado.  Apparently, Jim Messina (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) was dispatched to offer a White House position to Romanoff if he would agree to clear the way for Sen. Michael Bennett in the Colorado Democratic primary.  The Romanoff deal is even less sticky, legally, than the Sestak offer since Romanoff was not a declared candidate at the time.  Again, however, it appears that the more things change in D.C., the more they stay the same.  This impression is only reinforced when the parties involved and the White House refuse to specifically answer any questions about the offers on the table.

Why ... Thank You Mr. President

I'm sure you've seen or heard this lovely quip from the president:

'After his speech at the Kennedy Space Center today, President Obama headed to Miami for a pair of fundraisers expected to bring in $2.5 million for the DNC. Speaking at one of those events, the president made a Tax Day defense of his administration's policies and claimed to be "amused" by the tea party rallies occurring nationwide today. From a pool report:

'On tax day, he show cases the tax cuts in the stimulus plan, other tax break, and refusal to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. "So I've been amused in recent days by these people having rallies," he said to laughter. "I think they should be saying thank you." Big applause, and calls of "Thank you" from the crowd."''

OK - I'll bite.

Thank you Mr. President for ...

1. Single-handedly reviving the Republican brand
2. Moving Independents back to conservative roots faster than anyone in history
3. Guaranteeing the downfall of Sen. Reid and numerous others
4. Possibly enabling the downfall of the odious Sen.-don't call me ma'am-Boxer

Shall I continue? I have a whole list of thank-yous Mr. President.

Down in the Weeds

Following yesterday's brief post, on declining poll numbers for the president, Congress and the Democratic Party, here's a more detailed analysis.  Today's RCP Average for the president is -0.7.

And for your general entertainment, here's a science-based approach to international negotiations.

Down in Negative Territory

For the second time to date, and far more significantly than previously, President Obama's RCP average has dropped into negative territory.  Gallup, Rasmussen, Fox, and USA Today/Gallup are all negative.  The friendliest of the most recent polls to the President, The Marist (which typically has a high bias toward self-identified DNC responders) is down to it's lowest point; +3.  Today's RCP average is -1.2.  The best poll that is currently out of the average (their last poll closed 3/26) is the Washington Post poll (also significantly biased leftward) at +10.  This poll has been dropping more slowly than the others, but has also shown a significant decline over the last six months.  It will be interesting to see a snapshot in June, when the mid-cycle campaigns are in full swing.

The RCP average for Congressional Approval polling is also dismal (-56.5); Health Care is at +12 Oppose (52.4 oppose: 40.4 approve) and the Election 2010 polling is looking increasingly red.  It's going to be a long, hot summer.

Updates to Last Night's House Vote

The threat of having passed Deem and Pass through committee, combined with the Stupak deal, was enough to push the final vote on the initial Senate bill (HR 3590). The vote tally was 219:212, a three vote margin over what Pelosi needed for passage. The passage of the reconciliation measure quickly followed, and will be rapidly sent to the Senate. Sen. Reid states that he has the 51 votes necessary for passage of the reconciliation, but as mentioned here last night, Republicans are gearing up for a procedural fight. Republicans are allowed to offer unlimited amendments, each of which must be debated for instance. Additionally, the earlier ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian requires President Obama to sign in to law HR 3590, before signing the reconciliation bill, should it pass the Senate. That means that if the reconciliation bill is stalled, HR 3590 goes forward unimpeded, which is likely to anger members on both the left and right, not least because of the Stupak deal.

Whether or not the threats of appeal are grounded in reality (the president has another two years to work on his sales pitch), one thing seems increasingly likely - the Democrats have ensured a bloodbath come November.

Non-Vote Vote Rule Passed - House Voting on Senate Bill

The House has passed the rule allowing the 'deem and pass' measure to provide Democratic House members with cover from a recorded vote on the Senate HC bill, allowing it to move directly to a vote on a reconciliation package of 'fixes' to the Senate bill. These are required to deal strictly with budgetary matters, but of course one can word just about any measure in such a way as to make it about the budget. In the meanwhile, the president is expected to rapidly sign into law the Senate bill, and then to accept the reconciliation package later. Final votes were obtained after the president assured Rep. Stupak that he would issue a Presidential Executive order barring all federal funds from being used to obtain abortion.

'Just before taking the podium at a 4 p.m. news conference, the White House released the text of an executive order to be signed after the health care reform legislation is passed. It makes clear the president’s intention “to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services” and continues the current prohibition on taxpayer money being used for abortions known as the Hyde amendment.'

The Republicans believe that there are several rules violations in the reconciliation package that would violate House rules, including an appropriation to fund a new agency to implement the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," that does not fall under the auspices of the committees that wrote the Senate bill. It remains to be seen if these rules violations would amount to a negative ruling by the Senate Parlimentarian.

The Lines Have Crossed

For the first time in his presidency, and even more precipitously than Bill Clinton, President Obama's RCP average (a running average of major polls) has dropped into negative territory. The approve vs. disapprove lines have crossed, and he is down to -0.2.

President Obama Job Approval

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	3/3 - 3/18	--	47.5	47.7	-0.2
Gallup	3/16 - 3/18	1547 A	47	47	Tie
Rasmussen Reports	3/16 - 3/18	1500 LV	45	55	-10
FOX News	3/16 - 3/17	900 RV	46	48	-2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	3/11 - 3/14	1000 A	48	47	+1
Pew Research	3/10 - 3/14	1500 A	46	43	+3
Associated Press/GfK	3/3 - 3/8	1002 A	53	46	+7

See All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data

As the Los Angeles Times sarcastically noted, this dip could be due to many things, but is most likely connected to the president's obsession with passing a HC bill, any bill, by any means. Interestingly, the RCP Average will probably drop further tomorrow, after today's Gallup Poll results are included. The Gallup Poll reflected in today's RCP Average has an approval tie, but today's Gallup has the president down by -2.

Today's RCP Average also has the general Republican brand up to +1.6 over the Democrats. It looks more and more likely that November will bring a bloodbath.

Tomorrow: a closer look at the recent CBO scoring.

Results of Blair House: 0.1

Following the 'Blair House Summit' this past week, the president's RCP average has sunk to +0.1. The lines aren't just kissing, they're entangled. Any bets as to how long it will take for them to cross?

Congress is faring no better (-56.8), while Republicans continue to lead the generic vote polling (+1.1), and the sense of 'direction of the country' has sunk to -24.4. These results seem to be inextricably linked to the opposition to the health care bills, the average of which has risen to +11. The more these bills are explained, the less people like them.

Seriously? Fawning Reaches New Heights

Two wacked-out headlines:

1. From the NYT (of course): 'Gentle White House Nudges Test the Power of Persuasion'

'Tempers were fraying in the White House Cabinet Room as night turned into morning on Jan. 15. President Obama had been cloistered nearly all day with House and Senate Democrats, playing “marriage counselor,” an aide said, as he coaxed, cajoled and prodded them on a health care overhaul. As the clock neared 1 a.m., the two sides were at an impasse. Mr. Obama stood up.“ ‘See what you guys can figure out,’ ” one participant remembers him saying, adding that the failed effort left the president mad. Another Democrat who was there, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, said Mr. Obama left “frustrated that while he was putting out ways to bridge the problem, we hadn’t reached a conclusion.” Ever since his days as a young community organizer in Chicago, Mr. Obama has held fast to the belief that by listening carefully and appealing to reason he can bring people together to get results, an approach that in Washington has often come up short.'

I fail to see how leaving in a snit, ordering others to figure things out, qualifies as gentle or persuasive.

2. From Fox News: 'NAACP to Honor Van Jones as 'American Treasure'
The title alone makes me think of the PBS ads for 'Antiques Roadshow' ("... well sir, you have a national treasure, a national treasure'), putting Van Jones on the level of a well-preserved textile.

'But Jones still has his share of outspoken supporters, and one of them is Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP. "Van Jones is an American treasure," Jealous writes in an opinion piece posted at CNN.com. "He is quite simply one of the few Americans in recent years to have generated powerful new ideas that are creating new jobs."

Ahh - for that to work as an accolade, one would have to demonstrate that at least one job had been generated by these 'powerful new ideas' something I doubt Mr. Jealous (I had to write it) can prove.

Oh well - as least it's entertaining.

Understanding and Arrogance

From Fortune:

'The Obama White House likes to say that the theories of John Maynard Keynes form the foundation for its fiscal policies. Most notably, it draws upon the legendary British economist's idea of spending big to pull out of a recession.

But one economist says the administration has gotten Keynes only half right. Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon is one of the most influential monetarists of the past 50 years. He has served in the Department of the Treasury under President Kennedy and on the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan Administration. He also authored the book, Keynes's Monetary Theory: A Different Interpretation.

While the Obama team is laying out huge sums of money, Meltzer says it's neglecting a key part of Keynes' plan: You can't run up a debt without a way to cover it.'

The whole article is a great read, along with this one by Gerard Alexander in tomorrow's Washington Post. The opening paragraph says it all:

'Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.'

Comparing Relative Deficit, Debt and Spending Levels

This article from Robert Robb provides a good comparison between the relative debt, deficit and spending levels of the Bush and Obama Administrations, as well as providing several historic benchmarks. The entire article is well-worth reading, but these points jumped out (apologies for excessive quotation):

'From 2008 to 2009, federal spending increased 18 percent. This was a budget year that straddled the Bush and Obama presidencies. But the spending increase was driven by anti-recession measures, predominately the Bush stimulus and bailouts. Obama supported these measures. In fact, his complaint about the Bush stimulus was that it was too small. This raises a question of political ontology: If Obama agreed with Bush, is it still just Bush's fault? ... Obama proposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession. Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020. In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base. After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020. If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008. Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.'

Scary stuff indeed. Unfortunately, the president seems to feel he only needs to 'explain' things a little more clearly for the public to get over its annoying habit of judging his fiscal policy based on these numbers.