President Obama recently gave an address proposing his new plan to increase employment known as the American Jobs Act. The proposal was thought to be a fail-safe, being composed of fiscal and social action that previously received bipartisan support. However, the American Jobs Act is under intense scrutiny since similar attempts in the past have failed spectacularly. The act is reminiscent of the tumultuous stimulus of ’09, and anyone familiar with that debacle knows how unsuccessful it was.
Obama repeatedly begged Congress to sign the $450 billion package for small business tax cuts, payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits and Social Security tax cuts. He also suggested the construction of an “infrastructure bank” that he promised would pay for itself in a year. The aforementioned bank would be created to help alleviate private sector issues. The president then began asking Congress to quit being a “political circus.” I had to agree on this one. Regardless of how I feel about the proposed act, “political circus” is a sadly accurate description regarding the recent behavior of our legislative and executive branches.
The president was referring to the supremely magnificent immaturity both parties have exhibited since the GOP captured the lower house. Two senators and three house members — due to “extenuating circumstances” or political whim — couldn’t attend the address.
However, any eyebrow-raising about the “boycott” should be reconsidered by those who’ve given similar disrespect to prior presidents. Of course the legislative branch should support the president, but it’s greasy for a liberal to call out the boycott. It should be a mutual exchange of respect for either party occupying the Oval Office but that was appallingly absent during the Bush administration. The “donkey” — or lack of political stance such a name would imply— was ridiculed mercilessly. It would be beyond hypocritical to have anything to say about the absence of the Congressmen now.
Obama’s suggested “stimulating” venture is entitled to consideration but is lacking fresh appeal. He has been aware of disapproval from former supporters and it seems he used this address as more of a campaign speech attempting to regain their trust. The theatrics upon his arrival were endearing but don’t correspond with his current sub-40-percent job approval rating. The U.S. has thrown the economic crisis on his shoulders and he has yet to inspire any of the “hope” he once did.
So what does he do? Give speeches. We’ve seen quite a few at this point. But I’m not surprised. He was voted in on the strength and charisma of his diction and articulation so that’s what he’s going to rely on months prior to his potential re-election. Pro-Barack or not, he’s a politician in the sense that he’s aware of his talents and is faithful to them. He should have an act instead of wasting time suggesting them, though. I’d rather have change than hope, and at this point, he’s only provided the latter.