Jonathan Alter: How Obama can score in the first 100 days
[For two years prior to joining Newsweek, Alter was an editor at The Washington Monthly. He has also freelanced articles for such publications as The New Republic, Esquire, Slate and The New York Times.
A Chicago native, Alter received his B.A. in history with honors from Harvard in 1979. Besides "The Defining Moment" (Simon and Schuster), widely praised by critics, he is coauthor of "Selecting a President" (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux) and the coeditor of "Inside the System" (Prentice Hall).]
Nearly every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has loathed the idea of the "hundred days," and Barack Obama is no exception. The concept, first used to encapsulate the time elapsed between Napoleon's return from exile on the isle of Elba and his final defeat at the battle of Waterloo, is handy but artificial. Roosevelt provided its present meaning when he noticed that the special session of Congress he called in 1933 had lasted that long. It was a way for him to pat himself on the back.
John F. Kennedy tried to lower expectations in his Inaugural Address by saying that his goals could not be met in "a thousand days" (the title of Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s memoir of the period) or even in "our lifetime on this planet." It didn't matter. The nice round number—100—was like gum on the shoe of presidential newbies. Barack Obama and his people have tried to win a longer time horizon; they prefer to be judged on year one. But even that reflects an understanding that, in this game, most scoring takes place in the first quarter.
From a legislative perspective, 2009 could prove to be another 1933, 1965 (Lyndon Johnson) or 1981 (Ronald Reagan). These are seismic times. The stimulus package, which the Obamanians insist be called the "recovery" package, will almost certainly pass just before Presidents' Day and with bipartisan support. The more liberals complain in the next few weeks that it's too small and contains too many tax cuts, the more centrist Obama will look. The era of big government spending is back, and practically everyone's cool with it, even Reagan's top economists. That is the measure of our fear. Nobody knows if this contraption will work, but nobody can think of anything else to do.
It's mind-blowing, but we're about to have spent $1.5 trillion extra in just five months. That's the combined price tag of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—pushed through last fall when Henry Paulson cried fire, and fully understood by only about three or four Wall Street geeks—and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (ARRP), which will contain no earmarks but plenty of "green pork" (how appetizing): projects that get funded because they have some connection to energy. As you read this, hundreds of billions of dollars are being tossed around by Obama folks who still aren't sure which jobs they'll hold, much less where to find the bathroom.
The story of this year might be how TARP and ARRP ate Washington....
Read entire article at Newsweek
A Chicago native, Alter received his B.A. in history with honors from Harvard in 1979. Besides "The Defining Moment" (Simon and Schuster), widely praised by critics, he is coauthor of "Selecting a President" (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux) and the coeditor of "Inside the System" (Prentice Hall).]
Nearly every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has loathed the idea of the "hundred days," and Barack Obama is no exception. The concept, first used to encapsulate the time elapsed between Napoleon's return from exile on the isle of Elba and his final defeat at the battle of Waterloo, is handy but artificial. Roosevelt provided its present meaning when he noticed that the special session of Congress he called in 1933 had lasted that long. It was a way for him to pat himself on the back.
John F. Kennedy tried to lower expectations in his Inaugural Address by saying that his goals could not be met in "a thousand days" (the title of Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s memoir of the period) or even in "our lifetime on this planet." It didn't matter. The nice round number—100—was like gum on the shoe of presidential newbies. Barack Obama and his people have tried to win a longer time horizon; they prefer to be judged on year one. But even that reflects an understanding that, in this game, most scoring takes place in the first quarter.
From a legislative perspective, 2009 could prove to be another 1933, 1965 (Lyndon Johnson) or 1981 (Ronald Reagan). These are seismic times. The stimulus package, which the Obamanians insist be called the "recovery" package, will almost certainly pass just before Presidents' Day and with bipartisan support. The more liberals complain in the next few weeks that it's too small and contains too many tax cuts, the more centrist Obama will look. The era of big government spending is back, and practically everyone's cool with it, even Reagan's top economists. That is the measure of our fear. Nobody knows if this contraption will work, but nobody can think of anything else to do.
It's mind-blowing, but we're about to have spent $1.5 trillion extra in just five months. That's the combined price tag of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—pushed through last fall when Henry Paulson cried fire, and fully understood by only about three or four Wall Street geeks—and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (ARRP), which will contain no earmarks but plenty of "green pork" (how appetizing): projects that get funded because they have some connection to energy. As you read this, hundreds of billions of dollars are being tossed around by Obama folks who still aren't sure which jobs they'll hold, much less where to find the bathroom.
The story of this year might be how TARP and ARRP ate Washington....