When asked about the poor economic conditions in America ahead of the President’s State of the Union speech, Senior White House Advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, petulantly passed the buck to George W. Bush. The comedic excuse is as pathetic as it is baseless. But don’t let that stop the White House from trying to cast blame for today’s economic failures on an economic crises that came to life in the closing days of their predecessor’s administration.
On Fox News Sunday, Pfeiffer explained to Anchor Chris Wallace that the reason for America’s weak economic “recovery” was because of the damage done under Bush:
“It’s important to remember that this President inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression.”
Pfeiffer then went on to champion the great progress that has been made under Obama’s stewardship. He explained that eight million jobs were created in the last 4-6 months (failing to mention that many of those are part time positions thanks to Obamacare), and that the unemployment rate has been dropping (to roughly what it was right before Team Obama “inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression”).
Wallace responded brilliantly by asking why, if everything is “so good”, is everything so bad? The truth is, there is no mainstream recovery. I mean, heck… The real problem seems to be that Obama inherited an economic mess when he was sworn in for his second term.Labor force participation is at its lowest levels in three and a half decades. Poverty has increased from 6.7 million people, to over 46 million people. We have a record number of people on food stamps, disability insurance, and various government assistance programs. Household income, and household wealth, have both declined throughout the so-called recovery. These are not indications of a vibrant and prosperous economy.
Of course GW wasn’t the only guy Pfeiffer blamed for the poor performance of Obamanomics. Republicans in Congress also received a few passed bucks from the White House. Pfeiffer went on to explain the President’s intent to circumvent Congress when possible… Because, it’s pretty obvious that obtaining consent from the representatives of the governed is holding back American progress. (Can someone work on inventing a sarcasm font? I really need one.)
Which brings up another quick example of Obama’s aversion to leadership: Does anyone else find it strange that the Obama Administration seems less willing to compromise with Republicans than rogue states such as Iran? Maybe Obama should send John Kerry in to negotiate a deal with the GOP… Republicans would probably end up coming out ahead.
One would think that this far into Obama’s second term, the excuses would at least get more creative. Since Bush left office, the President enjoyed two years of a Democrat congress and large policy concessions from the other side of the isle. Remember that trillion dollar recovery package? Remember Obamacare? Remember unemployment flirting with tragically high levels? Even in recent years the President has gotten significant white-flags from the Republican establishment. Taxes have gone up. Sequestration was blunted. Spending has increased.
In fact, the only real legitimate “complaint” the President could levy at congress would be that they aren’t stampeding to the left quite as fast as he would like. Welcome to representative government, Mr. President. (Is that also Bush’s fault?)
Pfeiffer’s comments illustrate an amazing collapse of competent politicking with Team Obama. The State of the Union will prove to be a divisive and partisan speech that casts blame, bullies the opposition, and substitutes leadership with petulance. The buck, as we learned from Dan Pfeiffer over the weekend, does not stop at President Obama’s desk… Apparently it stops in John Boehner’s office, or on some ranch near Crawford, Texas.