Nearly a year and a half ago, I suggested unemployment may be in double digits as the 2012 presidential election approaches. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 9.4 percent unemployment at the end of December 2010.
More importantly, the number of employed persons was: 139,206,000. Based on the president’s metric for success, he has created and/or saved nearly 140 million jobs!
We, as a nation, are deeply “indebted” to this president (literally speaking). Our national debt recently surpassed $14 trillion, nearly equal to our entire income last year. Despite his “stellar” record on jobs, he claims his preoccupation with this issue has prevented appropriate judgment in dealing with the Middle East crisis now consuming the globe. (To avoid misinterpretation, the aforementioned accolades were stated in jest for emphasis.)
It seems if the president were properly focused on job creation during the first two years of his presidency, all of us would be better off. Moreover, it would afford him a more effective response to the serious national security issue developing in Egypt, and possibly metastasizing to nearby territories.
During the first two years, it seems as if the president was taken prisoner by his own ideological proclivities, and he lacked a comprehensive perspective for prudent and effective decision making.
The president suggested he was simply ineffective in communicating his thinking and policy prescriptions.
This assessment suggests that he excels in presenting a prepared response. Furthermore, he seems deficient in articulating a prudent, intuitive, and impromptu response to substantive issues.
Sadly, he has developed into a man “who cried wolf.” The more shattering deficit we face is not financial; it is one of presidential trust and credibility.
Unlike a product we are unhappy with, we cannot simply select a new vendor. Removal of a president is a grave matter, indeed. It must be based on serious legal, moral, and ethical improprieties. Moreover, it is an extremely time-consuming process for our government (executive, legislative, and judicial) as well as our country. President Gerald Ford claimed it was in the best interest of the nation for him to pardoned former President Richard Nixon, who resigned in the middle of his second term.
While I am not suggesting removal, we are left with this president for at least two more years, whose record of achievement does not breed confidence.
He abrogated his main electoral mandate to focus on employment and the economy. In an unseemly display, he presided over healthcare legislation that two courts have already ruled as unconstitutional (in Virgina, based on the purchase requirement; and in Florida, based on the entire bill).
Moreover, his vision for our national security seems antithetical to our principles and interest (as follows):
• Signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay prison, which currently remains open. If this facility were closed, we would need another secure facility.
• Instructed that we try alleged 9/11 perpetrator(s) in a New York City civilian court, in lieu of a military tribunal (for acts of terror and war). This may preclude the admission of incriminating evidence.
• Directed the presentation of Miranda rights (i.e., “right to remain silent”) to individuals for possible acts of war and terror. This may preclude our ability to disrupt active terror cells and networks. Anecdotal CIA and Justice Department information suggests it has disrupted information gathering and intervention.
• Exercised relative complacency during the recent Iranian elections, which were fraught with fraud.
• Excessive focus on global public relations (e.g., European speech about a year ago)
• Current handling of Egyptian policy. Israel, our most trusted ally in the Middle East, is disappointed that the US has not sufficiently acknowledged Egypt’s contribution to peace in the region for the past 30 years.
The approval rating of the president exceeds 50 percent despite his relatively weak job performance. It seems his personal rating may be a significant contributor. Conventional wisdom would recommend a campaign devoid of personal issues. What I suggested over a year ago was to demonstrate the interrelationship between his policies and the personal decision-making process involved (not his familial relationships).
The president's policies and the decision-making process lack insight, foresight, expertise, and judgment. As a result, we have experienced ineffective and inefficient policy prescriptions, which may prove harmful in years to come.
In my view, bona fide candidates need to begin articulating a strong message within the next month or two. Otherwise, a momentum might generate that becomes harder and harder to change.
“Beware the ides of March.” [William Shakespeare (1564-1614), “Julius Caesar” (1600-1601), Act I, Scene II, Soothsayer]
© 2017 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.