Quit Whining, and Lead

Quit crying about the lack of leadership, Republicans; you’re not providing any, either, with that.  Step up and lead.  Where are your proposals?  Talk about what you’ve passed that the Democrats are ignoring.  Pass a bill that substitutes targeted cuts for the sequester, and put the onus on the Democrats.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R):

The president needs to step up to the plate.  There is never enough taxes for this administration.

Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK):

…told Fox News that the cuts will happen but put the blame on President Obama, saying he has provided “no leadership” on averting the cuts, known as sequester.

And he added,

The reason there is no agreement is because there’s no leadership from the president on actually recognizing what the problem is.

Senator John McCain (R, AZ) had this:

I won’t put all the blame all on the president of the United States.  But the president leads.  The president should be calling us over somewhere—Camp David, the White House, somewhere—and us sitting down and trying to avert these cuts.

Do.  Stop bleating.

Leadership

Politico reports, on matters related to President Barack Obama’s claimed agenda, from immigration reform to deficit “pay down” to increasing taxes to… that

after months of buildup and a week since his State of the Union address, key aides on the Hill and at the White House acknowledge that even GOP senators who fit Obama’s vision of bipartisanship—Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma—are all waiting to hear anything from the president.

More, Republicans from Speaker of the House John Boehnor (R, OH) to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) and everywhere in between have vociferously decried Obama’s lack of leadership in failing to propose a concrete budget, a firm program of (tax increases and) spending cuts, a specifically laid out plan for avoiding the approaching sequester, a detailed plan for immigration reform (never minding that when he did “leak” a pretty specific immigration plan, Republicans angrily told him to butt out), etc.

What about Republicans’ own leadership?  Where’s theirs?  Where is the Republican proposal, passed by the House, that provides the next budget—and where is their explanation of already passed budgets in the last two years that addressed taxes and spending?  Where is the Republican proposal, already passed by the House, that addresses the pending sequestration?  Where is the Republican proposal for immigration reform, already passed by the House—or their tightly reasoned and widely presented argument for why certain aspects of immigration reform needn’t be addressed just yet?

Republican leadership means bellyaching about someone else’s lack of leadership?

What’s up with that?

Fact Checking the Fact Checker

The AP has a series of “fact checks” on President Barack Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union claims.  Here’s one of particular interest to me.

OBAMA: “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”
THE FACTS: That’s in the ballpark, as far as it goes.  But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest.  In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010.  But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.

As the checker says, that’s true enough “as far as it goes.”  I wrote just last fall about what our jobs numbers should have been had certain events come to pass as Obama promised they would under his policies.

He promised in 2009 a 5.5% unemployment rate by now.  How many new jobs would have been created had we actually reached his promised number?  In December 2009…the civilian labor force was 153,059,000, of which 137,792,000 Americans were employed, a 10% unemployment rate….

In September 2012…the civilian labor force was larger, at 155,063,000….  There were some 142,974,000 Americans actually employed—that increase of 5,000,000 of which Obama is so proud.

However, a 5.5% unemployment rate corresponds, if my 1st grade arithmetic serves me well, to 94.5% of the civilian labor force actually employed: 146,535,000 Americans.  …there are some 3,561,000 Americans that should be employed but aren’t—because Obama’s proudly proclaimed policies have come up short, and we aren’t anywhere near 5.5% unemployment.

Let’s look at this another way.  ….  A normal recovery coming out of a downturn as deep and steep as was the Panic of 2009 typically sees growth rates of 5%-6% per year, or more.  This Obama recovery has been 6.7% over the entirety of his term in office….  Had we seen a normal recovery (and using a pessimistic 5%/year growth rate), we would have reached today’s unemployment rate after a shade over one year—in 2010—and we would have been back to full employment (in the range of 4.8%-5.5%) in just under 2 years—by [2011].

There’s more to it (and the links there) even than that, though.  Under Obama’s policies, our labor force participation rate has been shrinking rapidly as Americans despair of getting a job and quit looking, with its own impact on Obama’s jobs claims [emphasis in the original].

The labor force participation rate fell to 63.6% from 63.8% in October [2012].  If it had just held steady since then, the unemployment rate would be back over 8%.  Indeed, if the LFP rate was just where it was in November 2011, the unemployment rate would be 8.3%.  Some 542,000 Americans left the labor force just last month.

and

The number of long-term unemployed remains at a sky-high 40.1%, the same as in August.

The following graph tells the tale.

 

What’s Being Kept Hidden?—Update

In response to Senate Republicans holding up his SecDEf nominee’s confirmation yesterday, Obama released (at least part of) his answer.

Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept 11 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC).

He didn’t talk to anyone in Libya, he didn’t talk to his own Secretary of State, he talked to no one in his own defense establishment—not his Secretary, not any of his generals.

Ann Althouse speculates on why he’s tried to keep all of this hidden.

I think he is ashamed. Here’s what I’ve been assuming happened: It looked like our people were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance.  But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours.  The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support.  It was always too late to help.  It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours….  When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did?

It’s not only shameful for the man, this timidity, this defeatist attitude, if accurate, is shameful for our country.  And it’s a reason our enemies—Iran, northern Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Russia—so plainly don’t take anything our government says seriously.

What’s Being Kept Hidden?

Former Senator and Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel’s confirmation is hanging in the balance.  Senate Republicans are holding up a floor vote on his confirmation until President Barack Obama is more forthcoming about his involvement—or lack—in the Benghazi debacle in which an American ambassador was murdered by terrorists.

Naturally, the Democrats are unhappy.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) said

Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.  There are serious consequences to this delay.

Yet, with those consequences, Obama continues to delay and to stonewall.  All he’s allowed to be released so far is a letter from his counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to three Republican senators averring that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf on his behalf the night of the attack.  ABC News had this portion of Ruemmler’s letter:

This intensive response, which was directed by the President, included 13 meetings of interagency Principals and Deputies within a week of the attack and involved continuous outreach by senior administration officials to the Government of Libya, including by the President and members of his Cabinet.  As to the specific question in your February 12 letter, Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the President on the evening of the September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to the Libyan territory.  At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.  The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12th.

What did Obama do in this “outreach?”  What did he instruct Clinton to say to Magariaf on his behalf?  Why didn’t he make the call himself?  What did he say on the 12th?  Did he do anything else?

I have to ask: what is there in Obama’s behavior the day of the attack and that night—other than his decision to absent himself from the White House in favor of a campaign fundraising trip to Las Vegas, I mean—of which he’s so ashamed that he’s willing to blow up the confirmation of his own nominee in favor of keeping it hidden?

Update: Sorry–this should have been published over two hours ago; a software glitch prevented that.