Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
Popular content
Today's Top News
Promises Broken, Promises Kept
The path to the presidency is a long and hard grind, and a candidate makes a lot of promises along the way. Many are throwaway lines that have little chance of ever becoming policy. Everyone knows it, and hardly anybody cares. Not long after launching his presidential bid in 2007, for example, Barack Obama promised that, as president, he would deliver an annual “State of the World” speech, laying out his foreign-policy agenda. Obama has never given the speech. Few people have noticed.
(Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)
But then there are promises like the one he made about closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center—promises that become central themes of the campaign. They’re repeated often enough, and they involve such a critical issue, that keeping or breaking them can partially define a presidency. And that’s the case with Guantanamo, which remains in operation. Having failed to distinguish himself from George W. Bush on this issue, it’s as if Obama resigned himself to embracing many of Bush’s draconian policies regarding the “war on terror” and civil liberties.
How has Obama done in keeping the rest of his promises?
His record is fairly impressive overall. The website PolitiFact tracks the promises made by politicians and assigns them one of five labels: promise kept, promise broken, compromise, stalled, and in the works. According to this formula, Obama has kept 174 promises, broken 63, compromised on 54, and stalled on 67. Another 148 are still in the works.
Many of these promises have to do with issues that are important to progressives. By that measure, Obama’s record in office is less inspiring. He kept or at least achieved a compromise on many of his key promises—most notably, healthcare reform. But he broke many of them as well.
There are plenty of reasons for the administration’s broken promises, the most persuasive being that the GOP has controlled the House since the start of 2011, and it has effectively controlled the Senate by filibustering nearly every piece of important legislation. And the administration can argue that there is value in putting an idea on the agenda, even if it doesn’t yet have the support to become law. A broken promise is better than no promise. Raising the issue creates some momentum in the right direction.
But whatever the explanations and rationalizations, Obama’s failures are deeply disappointing. His grandest promise of all was to bring “hope and change” to American politics, and any calculation of whether he has fulfilled that promise—and deserves a second term—must take account of his failures as well as his successes.
Here’s a rundown of the most important promises that Obama has broken, based on data collected by PolitiFact. They can be grouped into five categories.
Clean and open government
You might recall that the debate over healthcare reform was supposed to be broadcast live, on C-SPAN, “so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,” as Obama said during his campaign. The idea was that the best way to build support for the “public option”—a government-run alternative to private insurance plans— was to debate its merits publicly. Both the C-SPAN broadcasts and the public option quietly died when the healthcare debate actually began. The president’s first spokesman, Robert Gibbs, later pooh-poohed the importance of the C-SPAN idea, saying that Obama never “intimated that every decision putting together a healthcare bill would be on public TV.”
Obama hadn’t done that, of course, but he had promised to create an extraordinarily open legislative process. He had also promised to push for the public option that most progressives favored. It’s at least plausible the two failures are connected.
Obama also promised to put an end to lobbyists working in the White House. Once in office, Obama did formally ban lobbyists. But his administration also set up a waiver and recusal process that allows some former lobbyists to serve in the administration. Only a handful of waivers have been granted, but “no means none,” as PolitiFact puts it, “and the concerns about waivers and recusals … have convinced us that this promise is not being kept in letter or in spirit.”
Progressive taxation
Obama has made and broken several promises that involve higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The Bush tax cuts have not been repealed for couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 per year, as promised. But Obama did receive concessions from Republicans (an extension of unemployment benefits and a reduced Social Security tax rate) in exchange for a two-year extension of the lower rates. That 2010 compromise involved another broken Obama promise. There has been no increase in taxes on investment income, which affect primarily the wealthy. Without Congressional intervention, all of these rates will expire later this year.
With gas prices nearing record levels, and oil companies making record-breaking profits, another of Obama’s broken promises is relevant. During the 2008 campaign, he promised to impose a new windfall tax on oil companies. The money would be distributed directly to American consumers—$500 to individuals and $1,000 to couples. Obama hasn’t mentioned this promise since the campaign ended.
Labor
The declining power of American labor unions—and the related rise in economic inequality—are among the most important stories of Obama’s first term. Those problems defy simple solutions, and obviously no single piece of legislation could solve them. But at least two of Obama’s promises, if fulfilled, would have helped stem the tide of bad news. The Employee Free Choice Act was designed to help unions win bargaining rights by granting them automatic recognition when 50 percent of workers signed a card supporting the union. (As it stands, there is a secret-ballot election once 30 percent of workers sign a card.) Obama also promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011.
The Employee Free Choice Act—a bill that Obama co-sponsored when he was a senator—nearly became law, but it finally fell victim to a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The minimum wage increase never seemed to be a high priority for Obama and has never been seriously debated.
Immigration reform
Immigration reform is important to a key Democratic constituency—Latino voters—and it has also been one of Obama’s highest priorities, at least rhetorically. And until 2010 election, when Democrats lost control of the House, there appeared to be sufficient votes to get something done. But very little has, in fact, been done.
On the campaign trail, Obama had promised that passing comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority of his first year in office. His vision of reform included new security measures on the border, but it also included creating a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. He followed through, primarily, by delivering speeches—not by actually putting his weight behind a bill in Congress. Meantime, the administration sought to inoculate itself from right-wing attacks, and gain leverage for reform, by deporting a record number of illegal immigrants.
In retrospect, Obama’s promise to pass immigration reform in the first year was a sound plan. But the strategy that the administration actually pursued—building momentum with speeches while trying to appease the GOP with a ramped-up deportation policy—went down in flames in the election of 2010. Republicans have little incentive or inclination to compromise with Obama on this issue, and the prospect for serious immigration reform is now as distant as ever.
The environment
Obama made dozens of promises relating the environment on the campaign trail, so it’s only fair to note that there is a substantial amount of good news in this category. He has increased funding for national parks and forests and for sustainable agriculture; designated stimulus funds for projects that will advance climate change research; invested billions of dollars in the green-energy sector; and pushed the Department of Energy to update the nation’s efficiency standards, among many other successes.
On the other hand, there are significant broken promises. Obama hasn’t restored Superfund programs, which make polluters pay for their messes; hasn’t implemented an annual “state of our energy future” address, as promised; and has failed to push through cap-and-trade legislation, which would reduce carbon pollution by imposing a limit on the amount of carbon that any individual company can emit.
Polluting beyond that point would require the company to buy permits from the government, or from other companies. Obama promised to use the revenue raised from this program to fund various conservation and clean-energy programs. That might have been possible as late as 2010, but cap-and-trade is a dead idea so long as the GOP controls either branch of Congress.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



33 Comments so far
Show AllAfter Edwards dropped out of the race, Obama never mentioned poverty, so I guess you could say he never broke a promise concerning impoverished USians.
Never mind that we are poorer now than when he took office.
MISGUIDED STATE OF THE UNION PRIORITIES
President Obama's upbeat reference to our increased capabilities for natural gas extraction--while omitting the associated environmental dangers from fracking--is frightful. Despite the industry's assurances to the contrary, we know that fracking endangers our groundwater with dangerous chemicals having secret formulas, requires abundant water, creates much toxic waste, and even poses seismic risks due to its resulting bedrock fracturing. He evaded perils of the Keystone pipeline, which also ranks as one of the most environmental destructive--and unnecessary--venture in our quest for energy.
Remarkably, he almost sidesteps the need to focus our energy development toward our safest and most long term energy sources-- alternative energy systems-- which are also the most effective means for reducing our foreign oil dependency and related trade deficits, while generating meaningful jobs. Their much cited reliance on the intermittent wind and solar availability can be alleviated using hydro storage, which has been employed for a century.
Our president now has the opportunity to redirect our energy priorities away from our current destructive course. If he does this, history will treat him well, even if it costs him an election. If he defaults this mandate, he will be remembered for selling our planet.
AMEN! An artless job of smearing lipstick on a pig. First the omissions. Obama didn't make labor "2 promises", EFCA and minimum wage. He also, and more importantly, said he'd re-negotiate NAFTA sand other "free trade" agreements ('tho we Naderites "told ya so!" at the time, since his front-men went to Canada to assure Harper it was all just empty campaign lies). Since then he's added and pushed for more of these atrocities. Why no mention of the Green/ Domestic,/Clean-Energy WPA program? It'd put Americans to work at a fraction of what his (Republican) appointees have shoveled to the banks. I could go on (mortgage relief, etc), but this article's biggest fraud, and a constant here on Obamapology-CD, is the idea that "the Republicans wouldn't/won't let him" do what he wants. This has been exposed so many times I won't bother to do so again.... The only vote that is NOT a wasted vote is for a Third Party!
Totally agree. Check out this article from Counterpunch, "Obama Apologetics".
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/30/obama-apologetics/
Thanks for that link: powerful analysis. I sent this link to the editors of CD. Maybe they will post it.
Great article, Ronnie. I often check out Counterpunch, but I missed this one.
Levine thoroughly deconstructs the simple-minded, desperate and/or deluded bumper-sticker arguments in support of Obama 2012.
The support for Obama, whether enthusiastic or reluctant, has certainly dwindled in CD comments-- although as the tedious campaign year wears on, the die-hards persist or resurface, and acquire temporary reinforcements from partisan lesser-evilists coming into political heat.
This article probably wouldn't faze them, though; it would just go over their heads, and in any case they would simply sneer that Levine is just a "purist", not a "realist", etc.
Great article. I also sent CD an email suggesting they post it.
See BAR Obama the More Effective Evil
Must be a reelection year. The apologia class is dominating the forums again. I wonder how all the dead woman and children in endless war would characterize this trash?
As usual poverty is not even mentioned here as an issue. The US has the highest poverty rates, the highest infant mortality rates, the highest medical costs, the highest hunger rates, the highest homeless rates, the tiniest safety net (Even Cuba has a better safety net), and the lowest incomes. Frankly poverty and homelessness is the biggest embarrassment we have, especially when we spend so much time telling other people how to govern when we refuse to do anything about our own people.
When oh when will we begin this conversation about poverty on a regular basis?
Cat in Seattle
U.S. Americans are to stupid to have a government of the people. The electing of one incompetent liar after another is all the proof you need of that. The MIC/CIA shadow government toys with the people like a cat with a mouse.
Regarding the comments so far:
I love you guys, you keep me going, and I am sure many others as well. It means so much to hear from people who refuse to follow our so-called leaders in shoving their fellow humans under the nearest bus every chance they get.
Likewise, Laura.
Dennis Kucinich for President.... Alan Grayson for VP .......Gabrielle Giffords for Secretary of Defense...Ralph Nader for Secretary of State...Chris Hedges for Speaker of the House.
One of the most obviously slanted pieces of garbage I’ve read on this forum.
When it comes to the assault on social programs, Obama has been the worst president since the New Deal gains mostly because no Republican could have gotten away with it. Astonishing how utterly corrupt and biased this piece is via its omissions. Focusing this piece on his promises while ignoring what Obama has initiated via endless war escalations, undercutting civil rights, government snooping void of court scrutiny, elimination of social programs or their downsizing, environmental degradations and sellouts, attacks on whistle blowers, torture, secret rendition, and assassination of Amerikan citizens void of due process rights, voiding Habeas corpus, loss of treasure to fund U.S. colonization world-wide – and perhaps most egregious – this author puts all the blame on the Republicans for Obama’s capitulations while never mentioning that the first two years of the Obama presidency – it was the Democrats who controlled both houses and the White house and the only thing they could produce was to escalate the Afghanistan war, increase drone strikes on non combatants, and kill both Single Payer and Public Option for a For Profit monstrosity.
Astonishing how deep the shit coming from the status quo pundits controlled by the DNC.
Indeed, those cuts to safety net programs are devastating!
There is already a shortfall of over 3.5 MILLION units of low-income housing, but Obama cut the low-income housing budget by over 3.8 BILLION this year, with almost twice that amount due to be cut next year!
And not one peep out of the "progressive" and "leftist" factions!
What does it take?
The right wing used to define its political opponents as cry-babies or bleeding heart liberals. You seem INTENT upon pushing some kind of guilt meme, and I think that is your JOB. First of all, I don't buy it that you are homeless. You spend FAR too many hours, at time periods no libraries are open, in these threads. It's also interesting how YOU show up as yet another regular "fixture" just when previous "regulars" drop off the radar. Very convenient, that.
I think you're a plant tasked with a particular message... and like a parrot, you repeat it ad nauseum. IF I thought you were genuinely homeless and truly gave a damn about the most impoverished, I would regard your posts with more respect. No one hammers the same message redundantly (as that approach tends to alienate people) unless they are a robot, or assigned a specific mission.
When someone is this hateful, it is really difficult to not return the same amount of hatred.
This full-on attack is like something one would expect from a hooded and robed person.
Yes, you really do need a shrink. Carrying around that much hatred is bad for your health.
I agree Kanary. Have no idea why siouxrose attacked like that?
Thank you. I have to say, that with that blast of hate from "sioux"rose, she got what she wanted. I will no longer post here about poverty. Which means, I won't post here at all, because I REFUSE to support other causes, when poverty is ignored, as it has been and will continue to be.
So, "sioux"rose won her vendetta.
If that matters to you at all, then I ask that you give this a lot of thought, and recognize just how unwelcome poor people are to "progressive" and "leftist venues. Mostly we are ignored (which means we either post continually about the subject in order to get heard, or we give up.)
I ask you to consider whether a situation like this would be tolerated if the subject were gay, black, Jew, etc. I believe the answer to that is "no", so why is hate against poor and homeless people tolerated?
What I ask you to do is to reach out and include poor and homeless people in whatever your political struggles are. Invite poor people to post at venues like this, because unless and until we are represented in larger numbers, this sort of hate will continue. If what you have witnessed here bothers you, then there *are* things you can do to change this imbalance.
I wasn't being flip when I said that this was like a hooded and robed attack. With one regrettable instance, black people during Civil Rights did NOT try to connect with the KKK.... they avoided them. That is what *I* need to do, as there is no being rational with a person like this. One cannot hear through a hood. Given that this person is obviously stalking, I do NOT feel safe, and will not take risks. There is not enough support to protect myself from people harboring this much hatred. At least black people during Civil Rights had a lot of support from each other, and no small support from white groups. That is not the case with poverty. We ARE vulnerable! One of the things that results from people spewing hatred like this is the proliferation of thugs beating and murdering homeless people, because they know the view that people like this promote. Yes, I personally hold "sioux"rose responsible for any attack on homeless people as a result of her words.
One last thing: this person's use of an Indian name is reprehensible. I have many Indian friends, and not one of them would ever talk this way, not only to me, but to anyone else. They don't even level this much aggression towards their legitimate enemies! I enjoy much support for what I am doing from my Indian friends, including their praying for me and my projects during their ceremonies. I much prefer to spend my time and energy among people who are respectful, compassionate and caring, rather than being the target of this much hatred and aggression.
This person using the term "sioux" and then continually spewing hatred is just as odious as mascot terms like "Washington Redskins", etc.
Again, I ask you to put some energy into inviting poor people to participate in large enough numbers to make this kind of bigotry unacceptable. This bigotry won this time... I ask you to do what you can to see that it doesn't become a perpetual triumph.
This quote describes the bigotry that we face on a daily basis, and what "sioux"rose is perpetuating:
The Empathy Gap by J.D. Trout 2009
p. 30 In the research of Fisk and her colleagues, people were asked how different social groups are viewed by their society. When asked a series of questions about social warmth and the competency of different social and ethnic groups, the answers clustered around four emotional responses: pity, envy, pride, and disgust. For example, people routinely react to the homeless with disgust. This is puzzling enough. You might have thought people would pity the homeless, empathize with their position, and feel sorry for them. Not at all. And in a functional MRI study, when study participants were presented with pictures of members from each social and ethnic group, the medial prefrontal cortex--the site that registers the potential for an object's social action--popped for all but one group: the homeless. The homeless maybe seen as human, but not fully so, not as social actors."
Just a guess but, the poster is sitting in a van they live in at a "Hot Spot". Homeless often have alot of free time and would naturally be concerned about homelessness.
Of course. Thank you.
It illustrates the prejudice of many liberals and progressives that the poster attacking the homeless person thinks that claiming to be poor or homeless is some badge of honor or "cred" or something that someone would falsely claim, and doubt them and question them and attack them. It is sick. In what sort of twisted world could someone imagine that a homeless person was "faking" it just to embarrass liberals? How blind and self-centered must a person be to think that way?
Apparently, the person attacking the homeless person here wants poor people to be silent and invisible. That is exactly the problem that Kanary, and a very small handful of others, are trying to explain.
You are wrong. You are being hateful and malicious.
I already explained to you who the poster is, and told you that you were wrong with your malicious speculations and insinuations. By continuing this you have now also in effect called me a liar, and I suspect that by doing that you are also alienating many others who would object to you doing that to me just as I objected to you doing that to Kanary,
It is not up to any of us to "prove" that we are not guilty of the things you try to smear and malign us with.
I think we all need an admission from you that you are wrong, and an apology.
No "sioux" rose, there are no "plants" here. My Native friends would never reply as you do, where do you get this handle?
There are people who've never been heard who have been talking for YEARS about an issue that needs to be raised. That we have to do so over and over is because (sorry I have to yell here): HATRED OF THE POOR AND HOMELESS NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT AND YOU PEOPLE REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE VERY ROOT OF THE PROBLEMS FACING OUR NATION. Until we can discuss this HATRED we will continue to watch as our country is destroyed and they come after YOU next. This means Social Security, housing, health care, food security, taxing the rich, war, banksters, the economy,Wall Street, you name it. This hatred is used as an excuse to continue the misery instead of eliminating it.
I was on the phone call during the caucuses and Candidate Obama PROMISED to raise the issues of poverty when John Edwards stopped running. He has never done so ~ indeed he has been compliant with the further cutting of resources for the least among us. While I will say he found himself in a mire of s**t taking over from Bu$h, I will also say he has had the bully pulpit and done little with it when it comes to addressing the root of ALL his issues: poverty and its rising numbers.
Those of us who can WILL keep talking about poverty until it becomes something that is heard. Unlike Bobbie, until my grave (where people like you seem determined to send us), you will be stuck with people like me. I REFUSE to give up and will keep harping on hatred of the poor as the root (and solution if it were curtailed) to many of our problems.
Cat in Seattle
Aptly stated, Ekobe.
Gotta love this one:
"According to this formula, Obama has kept 174 promises, broken 63, compromised on 54, and stalled on 67. Another 148 are still in the works."
Nothing like giving your team a high score... can anyone think of any significant policy change or initiative contained in that "174 kept promises?" What, that they'd serve more fresh fruit at White House dinners? Score 1 point!
And this author, Theo Anderson, falls back on the convenient, "It's the right wing press/Republican congress that made Obama do what he did." No mention of closing off the health care debate early on to anything but industry insiders, ditto the way the financial crisis was treated... just by handing the keys to the very ones who drove the global economy over a cliff.
The only way presidents get away with so much murder, graft, corruption, and malfeasance is through the organ of a Captured media. Even when its echo chambers play one team's professed "fouls" off against the other, they reinforce very specific FRAMES of perception as to what's actually taking place. Today's doctorate in P.R. studies psychology and neuro-linguistics. S/he has a strong grasp of those words and images that bypass the critical thinking mind. In other words, mind control tactics ARE routinely used on the large segment of the public that still watches at least 3 hours of television each day. That constitutes a HUGE amount of programming time... and with sports a prominent cultural frame, most people still perceive politics through the "Team" brand dividing line. This piece is geared to that level of consciousness. To those who HAVE flown over The Cuckoo's Nest, its naive allegations and/or lies are mortifying. As in YUCK!
"There are plenty of reasons for the administration’s broken promises, the most persuasive being that the GOP has controlled the House since the start of 2011, and it has effectively controlled the Senate by filibustering nearly every piece of important legislation."
Obviously the answer would be to give Dems the House and Senate by big majorities. But with the present money driven electoral system, the ones that usually win are the neolib-neocons favored by the plutocrat money they roll over for.
Direct democracy
And the reason the Wimpocrats got creamed in 2010 was because they had totally disillusioned their base with sending 30,000 MORE troops to Afghanistan, mandating $70 Billion more profits for private health insurers instead of a roadmap for Medicare for all, and most of all because everybody could see that the same banksters that created the financial disaster of 2008, were all kept in office by Obama - Geithner, Bernanke,
Summers, Rubin... Peter Orzsag, OMB head of the budget departed for a job making
millions. So much for closing the lobbyists revolving door to industry.
Three more Trade Deals without any labor or environmental protections, the trojan horse of cutting payroll taxes to Social Security threatening its solvency, the whole
emphasis on reducing the budget while we increase military spending...
Recall the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and overwhelming majority in the House with which they did almost nothing. Lieberman was supported by Obama and Clinton even when he left the Democrats...
Rocky Anderson for President!!
Oh look, an article from a bureaucrat who really thinks the gigantic oppression/plunder machine just needs a little calibration. What he don't know is that the people are getting all their fulfillment OUTSIDE the machine.
The following quote taken from the link Ronnie posted above: note how accurate the characterization within Mr. Levine's article describing the apologetic wing of the Dem party Courtiers who are ubiquitous on this site:
"The problem is not just that lesser evil arguments are problematic at best. It is that they are also poor motivators because they induce apathy, not conviction. Republicans have this problem too. But if Obama and those who depend on his victory want to sleep easier between now and November, they will need an extra something, and they have nowhere to go for it but to the apologist’s corner.
Apologia aim to convince the unconvinced but, ironically, in politics as in theology, they work better at shoring up the faith of those already on board than at winning over those who are not. There is little chance that Obama will again fire up his base, but clever apologetics might just keep a few sparks alive.
For the “moderates” whom he tries so hard to please, lesser evilism remains Obama’s best, perhaps his only, hope. Whether he will be able to capitalize on that hope in what Gore Vidal aptly calls the United States of Amnesia depends on Romney’s transformations between now and November. There is little his apologists can do.
Obama apologists are already at work so, even now, we know what wares they will be peddling. Too bad for them that none of what they have to offer is even remotely convincing, except insofar as the case they concoct for Obama collapses back into a case against Romney; in other words, back into lesser evilism."
I would recommend you read the entire piece.
The author, Theo Anderson, gives Obama and the Democrats a free pass when mentioning the loss of control of the House and the so-called filibustering by the Republicans.
The Democrats lost the House because Obama and the Democrats turned their back on their base. Biden called unenthusiastic Democrats "whiners" and Emanuel called Liberal Activists "Fx%king Retarded". As far as the filibusters go, the Republicans actually hardly ever had to filibuster because the Democrats rarely if ever made them carry out the filibuster. How easy was that for the Republicans, all they had to do was threaten a filibuster. On top of that, the Democrat could have changed the rules on filibustering to make it harder to filibuster and they never did.
NO CHANGE NO HOPE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2012 SUCKERS!
Having failed to distinguish himself from George W. Bush on this issue, it’s as if Obama resigned himself to embracing many of Bush’s draconian policies regarding the “war on terror” and civil liberties.
Really, seriously, you actually expect us to buy this tripe? Time for a new job me thinks!