a tax cost of 2200 billion over ten years

Obama the "saviour" would lost its spirit and its ability to make the American dream Despite a more than honourable record on reforms, poll after poll confirms a wave of disappointment and loss of confidence. In two years, an American in four would have changed his mind on his credibility. Black point: the absence of tangible outcome on unemployment (9.6 of the active population in August), on a background of rise of poverty (an American seven) and shortness of recovery. According to the last survey "new york times" - CBS (published September 15), 51 of voters (compared to only 41 of positive opinions) now disapprove of his management of the economy, and four homes in ten believe their financial situation worsened in relation to two years. Nothing historically exceptional. As for Ronald Reagan in 1982 or Bill Clinton in 1994, on 2 November mid-term elections ahead as a difficult for the Democratic President Cape Town, threatened to lose the majority in the House or the Senate. Paradoxically, the populist movement of the Tea Party could give boost complicating the equation for the Republicans. And nothing says that Barack Obama will not recover by 2012, as Bill Clinton in the second part of its mandate. But it may have to revise its strategy. Back on the reasons for the malaise which has driven down popularity from 68 to 45 in two years.

Too doctrinaire

It is one of the main grievances today addressed the Democratic President by his "independent" voters Clearly, the fight against unemployment would have sacrificed to her two top priorities "left": the extension of social coverage and reform of Wall Street. According to the consultant Stanley Greenberg, founder of society of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner survey and former advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore campaign, 55 of voters think now that Barack Obama deserves the label of "Socialist" and 61 that it is now a "big spender" (big spender). Initially elected on economic competence crisis, the Democrat President now finds itself victim of fear of the "big government" and atavistic mistrust of the middle class to Washington. Paradoxically, the main criticism addressed to him by many economists, the first in which the Nobel in economics Paul Krugman, is, on the contrary, to have been too cautious on the front of the recovery by opting, in February 2009, a $ 787 billion plan which is now insufficient. In fact, "Obama is a pragmatic centre-left, but we forget that it comes from the left of the Democratic Party." "As soon as his first speech on the State of the Union, he clearly avoided to waive its progressive agenda, unlike Clinton, who has turned his back to the"big government"," believes the consultant Niels Planel, author of "in the footsteps of Obama", an essay on the revival of the American left.

Too spending

This criticism partly joined the first. In a notable Gallery published by the "New York Times" on September 7, the former Director of the Budget, Peter Orszag, who left office in July for "personal reasons", was clearly challenged the tax strategy of the administration. The extension of tax cuts granted by George w. Bush in 2001 remains at the centre of the debate. By refusing to keep senior income (more than $ 200,000 or more than 250,000 dollars per household), Barack Obama relies on an economy of $ 700 billion over 10 years. However, he proposed to Congress perpetuate cuts taxes for 97 of households (i.e., a tax cost of 2,200 billion over ten years). But for Peter Orszag, it is impossible to hold the official goal of reducing the Federal deficit to 5 of GDP by 2015 (from 9.9 in 2009), without increasing taxes for the middle class, and therefore return to the previous tax rates, at least from 2013. These criticisms on the budgetary strategy of the administration, to add the doubts on the cost of the major reform of social security adopted March 21. "Faced with the recent increase of insurance premiums and the cost of drugs, the consumer feels cheated", is a medium frame. It is true that the positive effects of the extension of medical coverage to 32 million Americans not will be felt in the long term.

Too brittle

"Initially, they thought that a graduate of Columbia was"one of their"", summarizes Andrew Ross Sorkin, the author of the bestseller "too big to fail". An excellent formula to explain the extent of the misunderstanding between the President and Wall Street bankers. Two months after the vote to snatching of banking reform, the rating of the Democratic President

is in free fall in some financial quarters. Yet, as there often, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase were among the major financial sponsors of the Democratic campaign. This is not so much an excess of regulation or the "Audacity" of the reform - much watered-down and attenuated by the lobbies - which explain ce shift, but the stigma of the "fat cats" excess and a form of demonization of finance. Hence the cold weather with the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, one of its most ardent defenders at the beginning of term. "Relentless denigration of the banking industry is unfair and prejudicial", entrusted to the "Wall Street Journal". More than a tactic populist, the hardening of tone of Barack Obama is the sign of a forward. But it is not necessarily the more constructive to the expectations of the "Corporate America". This prevents not the Chairman Democrat to benefit yet solid relay in New York or Silicon Valley with the pattern of Google, Eric Schmidt, in addition to the support of several social billionaires ("limousine liberals"), such as Warren Buffett and George Soros.

Too insular

Since coming to power, Barack Obama is working with a small team mainly composed of those surrounding him in his campaign, with the exception of Rahm Emanuel, his very powerful Chief of staff. "Once the President is elected, they wanted govern." "But they have forgotten that govern it is campaigning at all times," observes David Epstein, Professor of science policy at Columbia University. The lack of pugnacity of Wall Street and Republicans heavily penalized them in a first phase. "Rahm Emanuel had launched that should never be"waste a good crisis", but this is precisely what they have done." "They should have passed the financial reform as early as March 2009, when the trauma of the crisis was still in mind", continues this expert. Surrounded by a few families, the President is would be "insularisé" to the White House, and many want more open to other influences and other personalities. Some, such as Paul Volcker, the former boss of the Fed, have managed to cross the wall of the lieutenants and to hear a different voice. But they are rare. Today, it is the economic team is the most criticized, including Lawrence Summers, who is the head of the National Economic Council. This was the first to be redesigned with the departure of Christina Romer and his replacement by Austan Goolsbee, an economist said "centrist" of Chicago, of Barack Obama. Rahm Emanuel, who ran the estate of the Mayor of Chicago next year, could also go fairly quickly leaving his place to John Podesta, the Director of the Center for American Progress and former Director of the cabinet of Bill Clinton, even if other names are circulating. A potential pledge for the proponents of a clintoniste turn in the second part of mandate.

Too inclined to compromise

Barack Obama should take advantage of his victory to impose substantive reforms that he took to heart at high speed. But his natural instinct the door for consensus, and he is convinced that the best ideas will be born of this confrontation and will be necessary at all as evidence. He therefore sought to woo Republicans who have opposed him successive estoppel purposes while their rating was still at its lowest. But the three major victories obtained snatching: Recovery Act, reform of the health, financial reform have been prejudicially affected. Force compromise, including his own majority, reforms have lost their impact. In addition, the President has lost any margin for manoeuvre for new stimulus measures which the is badly needed. Suddenly, it is confronted with the rise of critics within his own party. On the one hand, the conservative Democrats - "Blue Dog" s ' spooked the drift of the deficits of the other; the Liberal wing disappointed by the lack of progress on the front of the unemployment and the failure or the freezing of the reforms on climate and immigration. If the Democrat party manages to save his majority in Congress in the elections of November 2, Barack Obama will have to change method, if not line. When a failover of the majority in the House, it will have to govern to "executive orders" coup (presidential decrees) in relying also on the regulatory power of federal agencies.

If the discomfort is real, as seen, many of these criticisms are entirely unfounded. Less than six weeks from the November 2 elections, there are still lot of psychology in the judgment on Obama. Everything is be played. Since 1862, only two American Presidents have managed to win seats in mid-term: Franklin d. Roosevelt and... a certain George w. Bush after the impact of September 11.