AllupInyourBiz

Ok, we all know that Karl Rove is not the most neutral guy out there. But his comments today in the WSJ article, entitled “Presidential Bait-and-Switch,” were for the most part, spot on. Rove points out the fact the Obama’s victory was based largely on his promise to implement “change.” Granted, it has not been very long, since the new president has been in office. But, Rove points out two very large areas where Obama has only given us more of the same. If the economy and fiscal policy of the federal government was not such a prima facie issue right now, no one would probably even care. Unfortunately for Obama, fiscal policy is under extreme scrutiny, and is the forum that he needs to use, to make good on all of his promises of “change.” The two huge discrepancies in what Obama promised versus what he is giving us are, Obama’s measures that have increased (instead of the promised decreasing of) the deficit, and Obama’s failure to reform earmarking practices. Rove observes:

Mr. Obama didn’t run promising larger deficits — but now is offering record-setting ones. He’ll add $4.9 trillion before his term ends and $7.4 trillion if given a second, doubling the national debt in five years and tripling it in 10. Mr. Obama’s deficits will be much larger than he admits because he relies on rosy economic assumptions and gimmicks that mask spending and debt (like assuming popular new programs he supports won’t be renewed).

Nor did Mr. Obama run promising more earmarks. Instead, he said he’d reform the earmark culture and “scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts.” Now he wants to wave through a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion stimulus bill signed into law two weeks ago.

Obama justifies it by blaming it on the previous administration, calling it “last year’s business.” I’m sorry Obama, I’m not buying it. The follies of the Bush administration are not preventing you from making good on your promise to curb earmarking. If you are going to try to legislate the economy, at least do it in the way that you promised you would.

In recent statements by Bam’s group and Hillary’s group, it is becoming apparent that the Obama ticket will more than likely, not feature Hillary as his running mate. Hillary’s camp has stated that they are interpreting early indications of Obama’s consideration of Hillary as a VP, as more of a courtesy than anything substantive. It is also noted that the Obama camp has not requested Hillary’s written documentation to be vetted, as part of the selection process, that is apparently occurring with other possible VP candidates.

The NY Times reports that Obama’s advisers stated that “a central message of his campaign — that he would represent a break from the way politics are conducted in Washington — would be tarnished by the simple act of linking himself to the family that has dominated Democratic politics since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.” In my opinion that is as strong of a reason as any to count Hillary out.