When asked whether President Obama has been tough enough in office, White House Advisor David Axelrod gave away more than he thought when he says Obama “took on the insurance industry, at least rhetorically”. (1) That’s right! The Obama administration fights the insurance companies with words, not action, and isn’t that the metaphor for this promise breaking Democratic administration? It fights the same way for gay and lesbian human rights: the “fierce defendor of gay rights” Obama has done “jack” and “squat” in reality but by God Obama was hot and heavy, with words and rhetoric that is, when he rolled out the same old promises and rhetoric (not accompanied by any action) in a recent address to gay activists.

The Obama administration has mostly fought a rhetorical war too against the longest and most severe recession in the nation’s history. Months ago, highly qualified economists including at least two Nobel Prize winners–Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman–declared Obama’s economic stimulus plan “too little”. Months after its implementation, they have been proven right as unemployment continues to climb toward 10% and states and cities nationally flounder. But on numerous occasions, administration spokesman have declared that they have won the economic battle against the recession. Certainly Goldman Sachs has as it has just announced record $3 billion profits for the quarter. For everyone else, it is a rhetorical flourish from Obama.

Or take the related area of excessive executive compensation. Recall the outrage from the Obama Administration months ago at huge bonuses being paid out by mostly bankrupt or near bankrupt Wall St. firms? But did the Obama administration actually do anything in terms of oversight or regulations? Nope. Again just words not deeds. Here’s a new wrinkle on this problem from an article in today’s Wall St. Journal. It seems the same duo involved in the rhetorical fight against insurers is taking the lead with the rhetorical fight against executive compensation packages: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod:

Administration officials on Sunday criticized Wall Street banks over their high compensation packages and their lobbying against plans to tighten financial regulations. But the administration’s tone appeared muted compared with attacks made earlier in this year, as Democrats — with an eye toward the 2010 midterm elections — seek to put a positive spin on recent economic developments.

Large financial firms “ought to think through what they’re doing,” White House political adviser David Axelrod said on ABC News’s “This Week.” “They have responsibilities… …White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said it was “very frustrating” that some Wall Street firms continued to pay out rich compensation packages, even after turning to Washington for help.

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125590805147593171.html

Sounds good so far, doesn’t it? Yes, but the problem is it’s all rhetoric not accompanied by any programs or regulations as shown by the same Wall St. Journal article:

Neither official [Emanuel or Axelrod] suggested any new, concrete measures to clamp down on compensation packages.

The rhetoric was more heated in March, when the administration joined in the outrage in Washington over $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives.

…

Only five financial firms are still subject to oversight by the Obama administration’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg — American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., GMAC Inc. and Chrysler Financial.

…

Goldman Sachs’s 31,700 employees are on track to earn an average of about $700,000 each in 2009, a record for the firm. In an apparent effort to soften any controversy over its $16.71 billion bonus pool for 2009, the firm announced last week that it was making a $200 million charitable contribution to the Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Democrats also may not want to shine the spotlight too brightly on high Wall Street salaries when so many people remain out of work… .”

That’s right: most favored corporate treatment by the Obama administration for Goldman Sachs (again) which has an executive compensation bonus pool of $16.71 billion (remember this company would have gone under without a huge Obama bailout) which will give a tiny fraction of that, $200 million, away to its own foundation! That folks, is the Obama administration’s program for execessive executive compensation: rhetoric, words, and hope that companies that have profited off the current economic debacle and government bailouts will reign in their own corrupt practices. Under Obama, rhetoric trumps action anytime.

But it is in the area of “health insurance reform” that the Obama administration has been exposed for what it is–the rhetorical administration fighting rhetorical wars without much substance. Recall that Obama and Rahm themselves were the ones who backed away from single payer months ago. Obama had called a White House conference on health care reform back in February and failed to invite a single speaker in favor of single payer. Instead, Obama began to talk about the “public option” as an alternative. Then, Max Baucus, his spearcarrier in the Senate had doctors and nurses arrested who dared to speak about single payer before his Senate Committee. Soon Obama abandoned “health care reform” for “health insurance reform.” That was shortly after the President broke his campaign promise to hold all healthcare meetings in public and televise them live on C-SPAN! Instead, he met in secret with insurance companies behind locked doors. Secret deals were reached that gave the farm away to the insurers. Obama spoke in Colorado of the public option as nothing more than a “sliver”. When he spoke to Congress about healthcare a little over a month ago, he even had kind words for the insurance companies. They were not bad people, he assured the nation, which knew better because they have suffered for decades from the onerous practices of the insurers. After Obama’s rhetorical address, Dennis Kucinich called the Obama plan built around mandated insurance “the wrong approach” and a “sell-out” to the insurance industry.

So Axelrod was right. Obama has taken on the insurance industry “at least rhetorically”. But even this toothless approach is blowing up in Obama’s face as insurers mount a fierce attack on any change in their privileged position. The administration seems surprised that these black hats, whom the Obama himself assured us were not “bad people”, would be prepared to challenge even their waffling, mostly rhetorical idea of change. Says Axelrod today in the Washington Post:

“The insurance industry has decided now at the eleventh hour that they don’t want to go along with this. One of the problems we have is we have a health-care system now that functions very well for the insurance industry but not well for the customers.”

Source same as (1) above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802152_2.html?sid=ST2009101802263

But if that is the case, Mr. Axelrod and Mr. Obama, why build your entire health care reform plan on the rotten foundation of the insurance industry? If the current health care system doesn’t function well for the people but functions “well for the insurance industry” why are you hell-bent on retaining this system and not extending Medicare to everyone? Why the faux outrage at the insurers when everyone else knew what they were really like except the Obama Administration?

What has been the administration’s counterplan to this “11th hour attack” by the insurers which seems to have taken the adminstration by surprise? It’s Obama’s method of governing: words but not action. Again, mostly rhetorical flourishes. Rahm Emanuel, in the same Washington Post article, is quoted as saying the “public option is not the defining piece of health care.” In other words, when under attack by the insurers, the Obama administration’s response is to further weaken its position, to further water down or completely sell-out on the public option which is the only way to keep insurance costs in line. It’s the rhetorical war that the rhetorical President thrives on. And who can blame him when 5 star-struck Norwegian politicians reward his rhetoric–not his warlike actions and escalation of wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan–with the Nobel Peace Prize? Who needs peace when you can have the image of peace painted with pie-in-the-sky speeches? Who needs a public option when you have rhetoric?