Angry at Obama

I hope Mr. Hopey-Changey changes soon. The Economist magazine, which endorsed Obama in the election, has an excellent article about the frustration people are feeling with the new President. This is the best paragraph:

But above all, people are angry that Mr Obama led them down the garden path. Bipartisanship? He is proposing one of the most liberal budgets in decades. Abolishing earmarks? The budget contains 8,570 of them. Honesty? The finance, property and insurance industries (all getting huge bail-outs) were the largest source of campaign contributions to Mr Obama after lawyers. Transcending racism? Eric Holder, the attorney-general, has accused Americans of being cowards when it comes to discussing race.

Today brought more typical news from the president: He delivered sharp criticism of 'earmarks' saying that some "have been used as a vehicle for waste, fraud and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the eleventh hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest." As a result, he promises to introduce strict guidelines for their future use. That would be commendable except:

His remarks came the day after the Senate passed a $410 billion spending bill that included nearly 9,000 earmarks, which are projects designed to benefit individual legislators' districts. . .

Obama said that while he would sign the bill, which funds the government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, future earmarks should "have a legitimate and worthy public purpose."

His actions speak louder than his words. By signing a massive, wasteful spending bill he's demonstrating he has no interest in protecting taxpayers' money but rather pushing through his big-government agenda.

No wonder people are angry.