There is growing unrest among the more prominent commentators and media outlets that usually cheerlead for Barack Obama. They are upset that Congress is being allowed to mangle beyond recognition the president’s vision.
Yes, the stimulus bill was a bit of a legislative disaster, but something needed to pass while the global economy teetered on the brink. However, that is no excuse for the same happening to the flagship plans on climate change and health. Here, Clive Crook in the Financial Times and David Brooks in the New York Times start to vent their frustration at the way in which the White House has been framing and implementing its policies.
The White House has a very ambitious reform agenda - and since Obama campaigned on ambitious plans and won the election, it is his right to pursue this agenda. However, the administration has given every sign of not wanting to get involved in the detail of the legislation. It outsources that task to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the pork-smeared, incompetent, short-termist horsetraders so muddy the plans as to render them useless.
By the time the record stimulus bill emerged from Congress, only a fraction of it contained expenditure plans that were clearly directed at stimulating the economy. Critics of the cap-and-trade plans for carbon emissions say Congress is working on a law that could even have the opposite effect from reducing emissions because of the pricing signals it will send to the market. Obama has also reneged on a campaign promise to auction all emission permits, allowing Congress instead to propose auctioning just 15 per cent of permits and handing out the rest.
On health, there is some wrangling going on about the extent to which a public health plan will run alongside existing private systems. But no one has yet looked seriously at tackling the most pressing issue of how health professionals are paid more if they recommend the use of more health services.
Both of these initiatives should add up to the most far-reaching changes in American business and society for decades, whether you agree with them or not. The administration says it is concentrating on backing laws that will actually get through Congress. But is it really preferable to have any old law than no law at all? What is the point of dreaming of eggs benedict and then settling for cold toast?