I Think I Just Heard A Discouraging Word

Until recently, the sound of criticism of Obamanomics was rarely heard outside of conservative newspapers (both of them) and conservative websites (all four of them). OK, there might be a few more, but not many.

But hark! The voice of dissent is being heard outside the conservative bastions. It's not exactly a cacophony, but at least a few liberal publications and broadcasts have stepped off the reservation about the claims that the Obama administration has been making about its economic stimulus plans. You know the ones that are going to cost us a few billion, or a few trillion, or a few quadrillion (that comes next, right?) dollars, depending on whose numbers you believe.

Now it's no surprise that the Wall Street Journal might have a few negative things to say about the spendathon, so here's something to compare the others to: "Two pressure points are emerging in Congress's rush to pass health-care legislation by the August break: how to pay for the package and whether to create a new public health-insurance plan." This came after the Journal reported that "a Gallup poll released Monday showed for the first time that a majority, 51%, disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of federal spending." The Washington Times reports that Obama's overall support on the economy has slipped to 53%, but he maintains an inexplicable 67% overall approval rating. That is higher than either of his two predecessors at this point in their Presidencies.

The Washington Post, the liberal publication least likely to declare every Obama feint to be an act of God, said "the list of spending plans detailed . . . amounted to little more than a restatement of plans already underway for the coming months, without any explanation of what steps, if any, the White House would take to accelerate the pace of spending." Essentially the Post's complaint is not that the plans eat up too much of the national wealth, but that the President hasn't laid out a clear plan of how he intends to get people to spend those funds faster. But at least it's a complaint, which is better than most major newspapers had expressed.

And then, drum roll please, the Post actually said that the Administration's "push to spin the package was accompanied by a classic misstatement by Vice President Biden," who said that "a big chunk of the money was geared toward 'make-work projects.' " Not exactly a stunning J'accuse, but it's a start. The article referred to Biden, not Obama, but at least it raised an issue.

Politico online said that conservatives have a point when they say that the "save or create" concept for jobs is meaningless because it is impossible to prove or disapprove the theory in the first place. The Los Angeles Times, normally to be counted on to say that Obama is right if he says the moon is made out of green cheese, was a little less direct than the Post. "Obama billed the stimulus as an adrenaline jolt, but the economy is still sputtering." OK, the article moved from the active to the passive voice in one sentence, but it's better than nothing. I'd have been happier if the line after the comma had read "but the stimulus has instead turned out to be a morphine drip."

The New York Times, in a monument to misdirection said "The President is now in the position of trying to convince Americans that his signature legislative achievement thus far is working, even as job losses mount." Translation: "The President wasn't exactly wrong, he just needs to explain it better." Nevertheless, it's not praise. And the always reliable Associated Press (allegedly a news agency, not an editorial agency) reported that "For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic."

As for the broadcast media, The CBS Evening News said "It's been nearly four months since Obama signed that $787 billion stimulus into law (mathematical translation: $1.3 trillion), and the economy is continuing to hemorrhage jobs." The AP followed up with an additional comment that Obama was scrambling to calm Americans"unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history."

Outside of the conservative world, the comments have not been very damning, but they do question Obama, his administration and the whole stimulus scheme, and that is a major crack in the previously cut-and-paste Obama talking points that they have been printing and broadcasting since before the November election. If Obama doesn't respond by ordering Attorney General to threaten the publications with injunctions and criminal charges, we may soon start seeing the MSM making genuine criticisms of the whole monumental Ponzi scheme that is the Obama administration economic policy. Or not. Maybe they'll just blame the Obama scheme on Bush.

For those who wish to read more about the cracks in the Obama facade, I refer you to an excellent article on U.S. NewsBulletin (U.S. News and World Report online) entitled "Media Skeptical of Obama Stimulus Claims." The piece is a wealth of more detailed quotes and sources on the subject.