Washington Monthly
Political Animal
By
Steven Benen
June 28, 2010

'THE LAST TIME ANY PRESIDENT DID THIS MUCH IN OFFICE, BOOZE WAS ILLEGAL'.... Last week, I mentioned in passing that President Obama's record of accomplishments, after just 17 month in office, is as impressive as anything we've seen in generations. It prompted Howard Kurtz to ask, "Will the Beltway pundits reassess Obama's presidency once he signs the banking bill? Don't hold your breath."

I agree; it's unlikely the Beltway pundits will pursue this. Indeed, the establishment consensus is pushing aggressively in the other direction. But I'm noticing the larger observation about Obama's historic record is nevertheless becoming at least a little more common.

Peter Beinart noted today that for all the challenges making life difficult for the president right now, "he keeps racking up the wins." Indeed, Beinart makes the compelling case that Obama has recorded more significant milestones in 18 months than the last two Democratic administrations achieved in 12 years.

[E]ven if Obama never manages another legislative victory, he'll already have pulled off one of the most impressive opening acts in American political history. [...]

The larger truth is this: Even as Republicans claim political momentum, the country is in the midst of a major shift leftward when it comes to the role of government. That shift is playing itself out from infrastructure to health care to finance and perhaps eventually to the environment. No one knows whether these shifts will revive the U.S. economy and lay the foundation for stable, broad-based growth, just as no one could predict the impact of the rightward turn in American policy in the early 1980s. Decades later, liberals and conservatives still disagree about whether Reagan's reforms changed America for good or ill. What they don't disagree about is the fact that they fundamentally changed America. Those changes made Reagan one of the most consequential presidents in American history. Eighteen months in, it's a good bet that historians will say the same about Barack Obama.

Beinart isn't the only one making this observation.

Take Rachel Maddow, for instance.

If you missed "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday, you missed a similar assessment, considering the Obama presidency in this larger context.

The clip is worth watching in its entirety, but Rachel's recitation of some of Obama's greatest hits revealed a pretty impressive list.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Even before today's historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens. Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn't just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink, it also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system. It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike. For solving our country's energy problems, something Obama has compared to man walking on the moon, it contained about $60 billion in spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy, also a historic investment. It also included an unheralded but giant investment in science and tech, amping up the budgets at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and an experimental energy research agency that was created under President George W. Bush, but never funded until now.

"President Obama also expanded state kids' health insurance to cover another four million kids. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amending the 1964 civil rights act for equal pay for equal work. He signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries' arsenals by a third. He created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. He set forth an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons.

"Then there are the legislative and policy achievements that don't just build on previously-set precedents, but set new ones. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. It had languished in Congress for years. The Food and Drug Administration permitted for the first time to regulate tobacco. Better late than never, he dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, broke it into three parts so that the folks who collect money from oil leases aren't the same ones regulating the industry. And now, it will actually investigate the industry that it was busy schtupping and doing drugs with during the last administration. Obama fired two wartime commanding generals in little over a year.

"He overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system in which banks were being subsidized to give loans that were guaranteed by the government anyway, a license to print money. That was ended in the savings put toward actual aid to students. He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle."

And Rachel didn't even mention the administration's successful efforts on China revaluing its currency, the advances on expanded stem-cell research, the national service bill, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years.

Her conclusion rang especially true:

"In each of these achievements and in the list of things he has yet to do -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell, closing Guantanamo -- in each of these things, there is room for liberal disappointment. I sing a bittersweet lullaby to the lost public option when I go to sleep at night.

"But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration's legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at CQ Politics was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR. The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he's probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, 'a big freaking deal.' Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done. The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that."


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024482.php

A good read in case you missed it.

I am not a fan of Rachel but she did a good show on this one.

Unemployment is great, But where are the jobs. This is what needs worked on. He cant keep extending unemployment insurance.

The majority of Obamas bills have never been tried before.It is a bad idea to label them as successful since we don't know the outcome yet.His stimulus bills have been a disaster along with his public relations to other countries.Give it some time and we will see what will happens.

One thing I will give Obama good credit for is spending this county into oblivion,dividing this country,and turning a deaf ear to the people of this nation.

Oh so true. He has accomlished one thing thou---he has gotton the largest group of anti-AMERICANs to work around him.
He deffenatly is not my Commander in Chief nor my President till he proves to me that he can be part of the military honestly!!!!!!!!!

He is a shaker and mover and we will see what happens from all of it.

Nothing so far has shown that he has bad intentions for this country so so far so good.

Man, you sure are brainwashed!!

one might point out, that given a multi-million dollar surplus, the republican administration, in 8 years turned it into the biggest deficit this country had seen to that point. a fact that Obama opponents seem all too eager to forget.

We won't really feel the impact/ramifications of his policies until after the 2012 elections. When his health scam kicks in and its time to pay the bill, it will gives us a headache and black eye. I HOPE that after his re-election bid proves an epic fail whoever takes over repeals everything he has done.

once he acts like Andrew Jackson and obeys the constituions, then I'll care.

That is point well taken and I was just as vocal against Bush and his spending.However I felt with Bush that although he was spending a lot we seemed to be heading forward with a direction and a purpose.I also felt like Bush and his spending was for the good of the people and our country.I do not feel that way with Obama.I feel with the huge spending that Obama has done(which has already out spent Bush's 8 years)has gone to nothing.I can't think of a single think Obama has done to make my life easier or better.At least with Bush I recieved two checks for $600.00 a piece and many tax breaks.

The last time any president did this much DAMAGE in office was during JIMmeh! Cahtah's failed term ... unfortunately for the United States, 'The UN' is much more competent a destroyer than Cahtah could have ever dreamed of being ... Committed Communists are always much better at tearing down than they are at building up ...

Moving forward? that's because they had the wool pulled so far over some people's heads, it kept the light out.

Let’s look at it this way, when he took office our economy was thriving; when he left it was near collapse.

The auto industry was failing, the housing market was in the worst shape it had ever been in. The banking and financial institutions were on the verge of an all time melt down. The airline industry was failing, retailers were experiencing lows not seen in 30 years. Unemployment had skyrocketed; homelessness was seen in numbers far beyond anything we have ever seen in this country. Pay rates for middle class workers were growing at about half the rate of inflation, while the whole time corporate taxes were being cut and cut again.

We saw the largest numbers of illegal aliens crossing our southern borders that we have ever experienced. We started a war (with the wrong country) after being lied to by an entire administration. (fake threat, fake wmd’s, fake intel)

In the first quarter of 2007 the top 5 oil companies reported profits totaling $468 billion. that number only grew for the rest of the year. yet in 2008 Bush passed a bill that gave these same companies $28 million in subsidies (on top of the subsidies they already receive) and also lowered their taxes for them...nice of him, no?

During this same administration the average ceo's wages grew to around 300 times that of an entry level worker. The average government salary stood at about $70,000 while workers in the same fields, but in the private sector earned slightly more than $40,000
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm

"The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000."
Now maybe you can help me here….what part of this illustrious past is it that you would like to return to? ….is it the part where a political party in the United States Of America picked as its leader a man whose father bought him a diploma from Yale? Or the part where this same individual pretended to serve his country (that is, when he saw fit to show up) by signing up for the National Guard.

Unless you are an oil company executive, a defense contractor, the ceo of any energy supply corporation or one of the few entities that get no bid contracts to rebuild **** that we blow-up, I fail to see how you or this country were better off……but please feel free to enlighten me, because i am sure that check for $600.00 is just about used up by now...

you talk about profit of oil companies, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person

that's your defense for oil companies gouging us for bigger profits?
interesting....

so let me get this straight...you don't mind subsidising companies that turn billions in profit?

so what happens when all the big companies, the ones that make billions of dollars in profits a year, sucks up all the money and does not put it back into the economy? people like me, and a few others, suffer more.

actually you should be asking ...

what happens when all the big companies that makes billions stop getting subsidies and pay their fair share in taxes...

then little pooples like you will be much better off.

"Let’s look at it this way, when he took office our economy was thriving; when he left it was near collapse".

what the hell are you talking about? Our economy was thriving?

You need to do some reading before you post something that ridiculous..

Ever heard of the DOTCOM bubble?

Here is a little reminder of the "thriving" economy Bush inherited..

On 10 March 2000, the NASDAQ composite peaked at 5132.52. The burst of the dot-com bubble was imminent and the NASDAQ would crash so spectacularly that it would never fully recover from the burst. Even today, it still sits at about 54 percent below that level.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble, a period that had lasted from roughly 1995 to 2000, and saw stock markets in industrialized nations see their equity value rise rapidly from the growth in Internet sector and related fields.

In October 1999, the six biggest tech stocks of that time - Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Cisco, Lucent and Dell - boasted a combined value of US$1.65 trillion, or 20 percent of the US gross domestic product (GDP).

At the time, anyone with an Internet name got funded and taken public in quick succession: with more than 400 of them popping up in total between 1995 and 2000. In fact, by 1998, Internet community site Globe.com had set a record with an IPO that sky-rocketed 606 percent on its first of trading: a statistic that goes to show just how much was being invested in the IT bubble.

Physically the bubble burst on 10 March 2000 - 10 years ago today. Rising interest rates in the US saw reduced spending, before a massive multi-billion dollar simultaneous sell order from leading technology companies such as Dell, Cisco and IBM triggered a chain reaction of investors liquidating their shares.

The initial sell orders are believed to be just a coincidental event, but the panic it caused led to a drop in the NASDAQ that simply has never been recovered since. Not once.

What's more, suggest analysts that even today the aftershocks of the crash can still be felt. Eric Janszen, who chronicled the demise of the dot-com bubble on his website iTulip.com (the name comes from the Danish tulip craze of 1637, the first recorded speculative bubble), commented on the 10 year anniversary of the crash by saying: "The fields that we used to be planting that five years later would be creating high-paying competitive jobs are not being planted, and that's been one of the negative long-term factors of this bubble crash."

http://www.fsteurope.com/news/when-the-bubble-burst/

The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.


Thriving you say... We were in a recession..

You left wingers are bound and determined to revise history..

First of all, it’s pretty presumptuous of you to label me a “left winger” since you have no idea where I stand.

Secondly, the dot com failure was eminent, what you left out of your argument is the fact that the peak of 5,048.62 was more than twice its value just one year earlier. But in fact, the overall economy didn’t really slow until after the attacks on Sept. 11, when added to the scandals of worldcom and enron (and yes the false value applied to the dot com world by venture capitalist) we did experience a mild turn in the economy. http://recession.org/history/early-2000s-recession

However, it wasn’t even until 2004 that economist talked about the recession starting as early as 2000. As first reported by the wall street journal and later in an article on cnn.com… rewrite history you say! http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/index.htm

Now, if you don't mind, i'll pose the same question to you as i have to several others here. (none of which have answered, btw) you just go ahead and explain to me and everyone else how we were better off at the end of his 8 years than we were before it. Not just as a Nation, but also as individuals. And if you don't mind, please tell me which side of the 22 approval rating he left office with, were you on?

You know, just because someone doesn't have a (R) before his/her name doesn't make them evil...it doesn't make them dangerous either.

Localized boom bust cycles of recessions go back past my lifetime.
recessions are not a super biggie
its three in a row making a depression that the governments work to avoid.

all growth bubbles set back ... the so called dot com bubble was very localized in the economy and didn't effect things like construction ... a leading indicator ... the way the recent one or the one in 1991 did in my region.

other regions kept growing.

this one is more global than the last few. It concerns a bigger picture than your little town or industry.
[not that localized don't hurt ... but they don't bring down the beast ... like fears were rising about in the fall of 08]

now our recovery has been stalled by Europe's crisis .

you cannot expect to not be effected in some way ... investments wise.

you neglect to remember the Japaneese stock crisis because it was more localized and has never been recovered from.

China will be next with its own crisis. and India is just plugging along ... gwowing a huge middle class of educated people.
[the real sleeper]

not enough (I) senators .. party politics is a big part of the problems faced with running a government.