Political observers say that with the events of the last week, accountability for the nation and its current problems has clearly shifted from Bush.


By Peter Nicholas LA Times
May 3, 2009


Reporting from Washington -- In the span of a single week -- from the day Arlen Specter turned Democratic to the moment Congress passed the White House's budget blueprint and on through the opening of a spot on the Supreme Court -- President Obama crossed a fateful line: From now on, it's his country.

Every president inherits a tangle of problems from his predecessor. War and recession, natural disaster and foreign crises. And for some undefined interval, new presidents argue that they should not be accountable for the troubles that arose on another's watch.

But inevitably, responsibility shifts. And for Obama, that time came last week, bringing both greater opportunities and greater risks.

On the economy, Obama won approval Wednesday of a $3.5-trillion budget plan that aims to help pull the country out of the worst recession in decades. It also smooths the way for one of the president's signature domestic priorities -- overhauling the nation's healthcare system.

At the same time, the budget projects a whopping $1.2-trillion deficit in 2010, undercutting Obama's ability to bemoan Bush-era red ink.

"It is now absolutely his economy," said Paul Light, a New York University professor who specializes in presidential transitions. "I don't think that the public will continue to believe that this was all George W. Bush's doing. And every day that goes by, it becomes more Obama's than Bush's."

Ever since his inauguration, Obama has nurtured the idea that responsibility for grim economic conditions rested with former President Bush. As recently as Wednesday, Obama sought that political cover when it was announced that the economy had shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter of the year.

Speaking at a town hall meeting near St. Louis, he said: "Now, we've got a lot of work to do, because on our first day in office we found challenges of unprecedented size and scope."

But the events of the last week made Bush seem less relevant, presidential experts and political strategists said. As Obama's imprint on the economy grows, so does his ownership of the issue.

That ownership became almost literal as Obama moved more deeply into the banking and auto industry crises.

As the Treasury Department finished "stress tests" on 19 of the country's biggest banks, the administration became further enmeshed in the workings of the financial system.

And on Thursday, Obama announced he was pushing Chrysler into bankruptcy. He may take another corporate icon, General Motors, down the same path.

As a kind of shareholder in chief, the president now is responsible for guiding companies with thousands of union workers and investors -- firms that remain vital to the economies of states that stretch across the nation's industrial heartland, from Pennsylvania to Illinois and south into Kentucky and Tennessee.

Though the auto industry was in crisis before Obama reached the White House, his team has been in charge of the rescue effort for the last four months.

"The perception will be that Barack Obama owns this bankruptcy," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. "He owns this economy."

On the political front, the decision by Pennsylvania's senior senator to join the Democrats moved Obama to the brink of a 60-vote majority in the Senate, which could prevent Republicans from blocking his initiatives by filibuster. One of the people instrumental in persuading Specter to abandon the GOP was Vice President Joe Biden, reinforcing the appearance of White House influence on Capitol Hill.

All that raised expectations that Obama should be able to win congressional approval of his core agenda.

Yet Specter insisted he would not be a rubber stamp for the president. He promptly voted against the Obama budget. And although Democrats have a strong majority in the House, their control of the Senate is still far from absolute.

Democrat Al Franken, the apparent victor in the still-contested Minnesota Senate race, has yet to be seated.

In addition, Obama must work to get support from such relatively conservative Democratic senators as Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-president3-2009may03,0,6269705.story

I fealt it was his on inauguration day.
But that didnt stop the Not on my watch, and I inherited this, and it's Bush's fault.

For some strange reason I dont think that will "CHANGE"

Anything that doesnt work, or goes wrong will allways be put on the former admin or something else. Obama will never be blamed for anything JMO

Good post!

I agree, it is Obamas problem now and has been since Nov, not Jan 20.
But, let's be realistic here.

It will take at least a decade to overcome the mess caused by the Bush Administration.

That means, even if he is reelected and serves 8 yrs Obama will never be able to completely reverse the mess. He can only hope to get a good start on it and hopefully do it in a way that builds a strong enough base for who ever comes next to continue rebuilding.

I know all you Bushies would just love to wash your hands of Repub responsibility for the shape of things, but you cant!

Look around, what you see littering our political and economic landscape was left by Repub litterers.
Dont worry though you will not have any tags placed upon your shoulders over the recovery. How could you? Republicans have done nothing but fight the recovering since Obama took office.
No! You will not have to suffer the credit for the stronger more responsible America that emerges from the rubble of the 8 yrs of the Bush Administration.

It's kinda like haveing a plugged toilet which over flows when flushed and chit runs out all over your floor.
You hire a plumber to correct the problem by removing the plug.
Do you blame him for the **** left in the floor?

Yeah, and the plumber that got hired is a trainee that is replacing the toilet instead of unstopping it.

Yupper, didn't even happen. What Bush administration?, the past 8 years didn't even happen did it? I must have been dreaming. Boy I tell you, it Bush had been a great president and he left Obama with a stable government, I bet folks wouldn't be so in a hurry to attribute that to Obama.. Geez

Well, Ive been trying to recall any change of power since WW2 that didn't include some sort of "situation".

Im drawing a blank. Being that you are older and more wise than I, maybe you can give me an example that I might be overlooking.

people just want to love obama.

im not sure what hes done to deserve all this love.......but i am so amazed at people's love for a politican.

Come on cat, You know the answer.

He speaks so eloquently

great post invictus

I like it that Bush is gone and we don't have McCain/Palin.

so it would not matter who was elected they would get carte balnche because of the bush issues

interesting

that would move the puppeteers agenda on a faster track would it not


interesting very interesting

ok...what if someone else was elected??? would they be able to use the same excuse???

i find it interesting

they put someone in the prez chair

have them totally pizz off the majority of the people

then the next person put there gets major breaks (and pass cause it was the hated guys fault) even tho the new guy is doing a lot of the same things (tho he said he would not in his campaign)

what a brilliant idea those in real power have initiated

brilliant just brilliant

We could have no FED by now, and no IRS, and sound money backed by gold. We could be a center of world strive to safely park their capital now.

We could....

But we won't. Cause our morals aren't good enough to elect Ron Paul. All we can do is elect someone like a communist Obama.

We are the alcoholic who dreams what would he become if he stop drinking.

let's say (for the sake of arguement) that I was elected president in 2012....could I blame it on BHO and get away with it??? probably not.

Remember, it is never Obama's fault.

I think it could be worse if we had McCain/Palin.