:: Govind Talwalkar

Obama yet to deliver on his promises

Govind Talwalkar

May.12 : Now that the media din of the first 100 days of Barack Obama as the President of the United States has somewhat died down, one can calmly and objectively asses his achievements, failures and setbacks during this period. At the outset one must admit that Mr Obama’s job approval rating is 63 per cent, which is second to that of Ronald Reagan, who was at 67 per cent.

During the primaries and in the general campaign, Mr Obama was told by his rivals that he was inexperienced and that there is no on-the-job training for the President. He has to start taking decisions on the very first day of his office. Mr Obama, in these 100 days, has shown no sign of any inexperience. On the contrary, he has taken scores of initiatives in domestic and foreign policy matters. So much so that some critics have started saying that with so many plans, proposals and executive orders, the new President would find it difficult to implement any of them.

With the announcement of closing Guantanamo Bay and other secret prisons by the end of this year, Mr Obama has assured the world that the US would not transgress the international law. This was greeted by the world. He has also decided that the combat soldiers in Iraq would be brought back home in 19 months. In his meetings with world leaders and even in public he accepted that at times US was derisive of Europe, and Europe also was condemning everything American. He, therefore, suggested introspection on both sides. This is a new start which is welcome.

On his 100th day, Mr Obama received a present from the Republican Senator Arlen Specter. The Pennsylvania Senator switched over to the Democratic Party which now would have 60 senators, depriving the Republicans of filibuster.

The conservative elements in the US were furious that their President should shake hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but sober people think that Mr Obama did the right thing. Conservatives say that people like Mr Chavez or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are always eager to steal the limelight and whenever they see a television camera and a microphone they lose their heads.

Along with his country, Mr Obama has vast number of admirers abroad. But it is evident that this popularity has not brought any tangible results in Europe. Germany and France have not responded favourably to Mr Obama’s appeal to add to the economic stimulus plan. Both squarely blame the US for the present financial crisis. Germany has also refused to send combat troops to Afghanistan.

The rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the fragility of the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan has posed a difficult problem for the Obama administration. Though the Pakistan Army has taken an offensive stance against the militants, doubts persist about the sustainability of their action. Some say that the Pakistani Army has taken this offensive to get more financial and military aid from the US and when it gets this, the Army will resort to its old tricks. Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai government is not relied upon these days. In such circumstances the Obama administration will not only have to decide on a strategy but also the means to implement it.

West Asia remains intractable. The financial crisis in which the US finds itself is not of his making, but his Democratic Party cannot escape some blame. George W. Bush inherited surplus from Bill Clinton but left behind huge debts and budgetary deficit. During his campaign, Mr Obama used to criticise Mr Bush for spending like a drunken sailor — national debt rose to $2.3 trillion under Mr Bush. But Mr Obama’s own budget would run into $ 9.3 trillion in the next 10 years. According to the budget office, which is not partisan, this amount would go up further. Experts are, therefore, worried about how to pay for it and predict tax increase.

The stimulus plan was initiated by Mr Bush, with the approval of the Democratic Party and supported by Mr Obama. But it didn’t stimulate the economy. Mr Obama, after assuming office, added several billions to the plan and presented a budget, cleared by the Congress, that is unprecedented in size.

conservatives are critical of Mr Obama for taking over some auto giants and investing taxpayers’ money in banks which were on the brink. But it is not as if the new administration on its own rushed to rescue banks, auto industries as well as insurance and mortgage companies. All these companies approached the Bush administration and the new administration has widened the reach as the situation demanded it.

The market collapse and the closure of various companies and banks is due to the "casino capitalism" permitted by Mr Bush and his administration. In the last few months, several financial frauds have come to light which clearly show that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not function and the Congress has been accused of oversight. It was the Bush administration which bought shares of the banks and auto companies. So it is improper to criticise the present administration as being "socialist" for running various sectors of economy.

It’s not that only the government was surviving on borrowed money, American citizens too were living beyond their means. America had become a nation of borrowers. So their representatives could not be different.

Auto industries were not compelled to make fuel-efficient cars. Among the three auto giants, Ford has not taken any bailout money from the government; General Motors has been given one more month to submit a plan for rejuvenation; and Chrysler has applied for bankruptcy. Italy’s Fiat might take over Chrysler, provided the court is not approached by dealers and others.

Even with such massive infusion of capital in banks and industries, unemployment in the US is rising. More than six millions are receiving unemployment aid. The jobless number for April is 631,000. Consumer confidence has not picked up and people are generally reluctant to spend. Banks, despite getting billions from the Treasury, do not lend much — that is why the stimulus has not been effective.

Thus Mr Obama might be enjoying considerable popularity here and abroad but this has not brought any tangible results. There are some who like him but not his policies and others who want to have improved healthcare system but are apprehensive about the gigantic bureaucratic machine which would be ushered in. All this might entail huge costs and nobody knows how it would be paid. So also is the case with reducing emissions to counter climate change.