The Obama administration is setting up a “monitoring and verification” regime, which will determine whether the United States sends or suspends foreign aid to Afghanistan – a nation rife with corruption and a growing drug trade. It’s such a great idea, why don’t we do the same here? According to the Los Angeles Times, “The United States is developing a set of benchmarks to ensure that Afghan President Hamid Karzai keeps a promise delivered at his inauguration to fight corruption and inefficiency…” Back in February, when congress passed the 800 billion dollar “stimulus” bill, President Obama promised that the behemoth spending measure would keep U.S. unemployment under 8 percent. It now stands at 10.2 percent (though some say the number is more like 17.5 percent).
During Obama’s inaugural speech, he said, “The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” So far, the only ones getting fat off taxpayers are his cronies at ACORN. Suppose we attach “benchmarks” to the success of “hope and change?” What if the congress applied the same standards of honesty and efficiency to President Obama as it does Afghanistan’s Karzai?
Of President Karzai, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, said, “Ordinary Afghans must be convinced that the powerful can no longer exploit their positions…the less fortunate in this country struggle to find work and to feed their families.” Wow, he could have been talking about Obama, ACORN and the struggling American taxpayer.
Obama’s stern anti-corruption policy for a Third World president would be much more credible if he applied the same yardstick to his own administration.
-- Mr. Curmudgeon
0 comments on "Benchmarking Hope and Change"