One year later…

Barack Hussein Obama became the President-Elect of the United States one year ago tomorrow. It’s a handy yardstick, even though it doesn’t mark a full year in office, and I think it’s worth comparing his accomplishments so far with George W. Bush’s.

In terms of legislation, in all of 2001, Bush signed:

In 2009, Obama signed:

Now lest you think I’m giving Obama the edge solely on quantity, I’d like to note that I am, as a rule, in favor of less legislation. I recently expressed to a friend my desire to drop back to the Constitution (plus its amendments) and start the legal system over from there. But the content of the legislation passed under Obama speaks volumes.

Each president signed some form of economic booster legislation. In each case, it was ideologically motivated, and quite frankly I have my doubts about the effectiveness of either. If you, as a government, claim to believe in the power of capitalism, it helps to… you know… believe in capitalism. It may not be pretty, but the market will eventually sort itself out. Violently changing the system by adding (or trying to add) huge amounts of government or consumer spending to it mostly muddies the water and strings along an economy that is long overdue for a collapse and subsequent rebuilding. Think of it as the equivalent of preventing skyscrapers from collapsing in an earthquake by building other skyscrapers to support them. It may work for a while, but eventually it’s all going to fall down.

Bush’s other signatures went, respectively, to an authorization of military force (arguably necessary, but perhaps a wee bit rushed), a free trade agreement that has led to an increase in sweatshop conditions, the PATRIOT Act (a piece of Big Brother-esque legislation that cynically took advantage of the fear felt by many Americans after the September 11th attacks), and an act that predominantly extended anti-internet-tax laws that were already in place.

I appreciate that I have the advantage of hindsight in examining Bush’s freshman legislative agenda. I would even enjoy the minimalism of it, were it not for the PATRIOT Act’s overarching reach. Nevertheless, let’s examine Obama’s freshman legislation.

Aside from the economic stimulus bill, Congress under Barack Obama has (among other things) lifted the ban on using federal money for stem cell research, helped ensure the rights of women to receive equal pay, extended existing health insurance programs to more children, expanded AmeriCorps, improved consumer rights regarding credit cards (although admittedly only for new contracts, once the law goes into effect in February), provided for the veterans’ health care budget to be decided a year in advance to ensure care can be provided, reauthorized an act ensuring care for HIV/AIDS victims, and extended hate crime legislation to cover crimes committed on the basis of a victim’s sexual identity (while simultaneously reaffirming First Amendment rights and stripping a death penalty clause that had been included in a previous version of the bill).

I have mixed feelings about hate crimes laws; they do tend to run up against freedom of speech issues, and they look a little bit like double jeopardy. Existing laws against violence really should be sufficient to prevent hate violence. On the other hand, hate crime legislation is generally passed to help protect those who are in the minority or who otherwise lack the power to defend themselves, which is something I can absolutely stand behind.

None of that is my point, though. During George W. Bush’s freshman session, Congress stripped away rights from individuals, libraries, and academic institutions. During the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency, Congress has taken a progressive stance, extending rights to those who lack them and protecting the American people from hateful and predatory entities within our own borders.

I know which of those agendas I prefer.

Notes

  1. jwisser posted this