Brookings isn’t exactly part of the right-wing conspiracy, neither is Reuters. I’ve got mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it’s more of the same old-school political crap from a guy who promised us change. He’ll deserve all the criticism he gets for this if the story gets legs. On the other hand though, red states do suck on the federal teat more than blue states. Plus they demand the spending cuts more than blue states do. So why shouldn’t red states eat more of the cuts? And I also still feel, despite this, that the administration, using (often) objective standards for allocating money, will do so in a less politicized way than Congressmen seeking earmarks.
Yes. Presidents are politicians so wherever possible they will utilize the power of their office to help play politics. Bush was generally a very pro-Free Trade President ideologically and certainly his backers in the corporate wing of the GOP were as well. But in 2002 he promulgated steel tariffs which were ultimately found to be against WTO rules. This was against the desires of many in his party and frankly was a strange decision given his position on trade throughout his Presidency.
But when you look at it as a calculated political move to curry favor in Pennsylvania and to a lesser degree Ohio and West Virginia [both states with exposure to the steel industry, and both were still swing states in 2004 as West Virginia’s flipping to the GOP in 2000 was not then known to be a long term and permanent shift to red, as the State had been a blue state for 80 years], Bush’s decision starts to make sense. Further evidence it was a political move came when the WTO authorized $2bn in sanctions against the United States for the tariffs, and Bush still refused to relent–meaning he was willing to pay that amount of money to get votes. He only relented a few weeks later when the EU did something pretty smart, they threatened tariffs on a very specific range of American exports that would have specifically targeted important swing states (Florida oranges were one such threatened target, for example.) Seeing that the writing was on the wall, he agreed to relent after that and dropped the tariffs around 11 months before the 2004 election. It’s still debatable if the year-long tariff built up enough good will that it was part of what swung Ohio to him in 2004, but it probably didn’t hurt.
I remember the steel tariffs. But there’s a distinction between supporting a policy above board for political reasons and using what is supposed to be an objective process to benefit your party politically.
It’s not illegal, and I wouldn’t even call it much of a scandal. But coming from a man who promised to change that sort of thing, it shouldn’t be surprising why he’s unpopular. People take a dim view of being sold fake products.
Der Obama Der. What the fuck does this have to do with elections?
I just thought it was the best fit since it centers around the primary rationale for electing Barack Obama in the first place: change.
There aren’t many specifics here – the broader story (that blue states are getting more federal money for various things) could be easily explained by many red state governors/legislatures refusing things that would be otherwise beneficial because they are “tainted” by Obama. It’s reasonable for the WH to more effectively and efficiently dole out financial assistance to states in which the governors and legislatures say “Mr. President, please help us in the areas of X, Y, and Z – some money here and there would really help the people of our state” than ones who say “fuck you Hussein”. Not because of the personal animosity, but just because the WH needs to know what the problems and possible solutions in each state before they can try to solve them.
It’s very likely politics, but is it the politics of the WH offering more help to “friendly” states, or the politics of “unfriendly” states refusing help if it comes from Obama?
It’s about time. It is entirely justified, and within the prerogative of the president. Being a conservative should have consequences. What good is winning an election if you can’t use it to punish your adversaries?
Boo hoo. Grow up.
When a Democrat runs as a typical politician who plans to use supposedly non-political programs to reward his supporters and punish his rivals, then at least we’ll know what we’re getting. Hillary Clinton will probably never try to put one over on the public that way. We know she and her husband are politicians and will use every legal lever available to them.
Obama promised to be different. But see, that’s okay. The fact that he lied is probably what’s led to Democrats winning fewer youth voters in every election since 2008.
So we should hold Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans, whose motto seems to be, “You fucked up, you trusted us!”
Nice try. I don’t feel the least bit guilty about this.
No, we should hold politicians to the standard they set for themselves. Everyone should be outraged when a politician turns out to be a fraud.
Of course you don’t feel guilty. You wanted a typical Democratic politician. You, and a lot of others in the know, went along with the fraud, and several other frauds(You can keep your health insurance!) in order to get the outcomes you wanted.
Of course. I find them far more constructive than the typical Republican politician. I am wise enough not to have a meltdown when their reach exceeds their grasp.
I am ready to get back to kick-em-in-the-balls politics. We let the Republicans get away with murder for too long. I think people like the new froggier Obama, and I think that will play well for Democrats running in 2016.
But feel free to fight the last battle if you wish.
You haven’t established that he lied or is playing politics with this issue at all.
That’s not the conclusion of the study, which does not show other factors accounting for all of the disparity.
And I think it’s well established by now that he never had any intention of changing politics. There was no real difference between him and Hillary Clinton. At least Hillary will never promise to run the most honest and transparent administration in history. There’s virtue in being honest about being dishonest.
The link does not support your criticism – it could easily be explained by other factors (such as the politicization from the other side I mentioned). If you just wanted another “adaher’s personal hatred of Obama” thread, at least you could mark it ahead of time in the thread title.
The part of the article quoted in the OP hints that red states are getting billions less than blue states, but from the same article:
I’d like to see more evidence before I consider this an issue.
Agree - unless the study breaks down where the spending went to, and how much difference spending would be if GOP governors didn’t run away from Fed’l $$, because it was more important to say no to Obama than helping their constituents, the OP’s conclusion is worthless.
The article indicates every President since at least LBJ has done this (if I read correctly.) It seems unlikely Obama isn’t doing the same given the observed discrepancy is there. However it’s also probably not that significant. So Tennessee has $15m less dollars, even a mid-sized State like TN has a budget of around $31bn, $15m is a rounding error. Additionally it’s unlikely 100% of the $15m difference is political. I worked in State government here in VA for 5 years after retiring and grant writing was a significant part of my work. The vast majority of programs we filed grant applications under were Federal State partnership programs in which getting the Federal grant was contingent on the State committing to spending X. So to get a Federal grant VA might need to agree to kick in $1m and the Feds would kick in $4m. But a lot of red states have been implementing what amounts to austerity measures, so it’s possible TN is getting less grant money because it is filing fewer grant applications because its legislature has cut bureau budgets and thus the civil servants can no longer commit as many State funds as before, and thus are getting fewer Federal grant dollars.
This is all regression to the mean. The Federal largess to the red states is so out of range that it’s going to take a lot more than a couple of years of 1.5% reduction in grants to even start to make up the difference. They’ve got the gall to bring up Mississippi, which gets two dollars in Federal spending for every dollar of taxes they send the Federal government? That takes balls.
This comment is a perfect example of why politics in this country are absolutely fucked.
Slee
This could be just the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for!