I disagree. Every single candidate promises things they can't deliver. And priorities change over time. It just goes with the territory. Expecting any elected official to deliver on all their specific promises is unrealistic. Expecting them to govern in the general direction that they promised, and not the opposite direction, that I think is perfectly reasonable. barfo
Vinyard, this will teach you to try and get serious around here. But here's a serious answer... 1) A short, medium and long term plan to lower the deficit. 2) A short, medium and long term plan to balance the federal budget. With a true unemployment rate of 16% and a country teetering on insolvency I would think those are his biggest priorities.
Lowering the deficit IS getting the budget closer to balanced. His top three (and only) priorities should be: 1. Jobs 2. Stop the real estate market from it's continued meltdown 3. Stop the reckless overspending
Back on topic, I think two of his points were to restore his concept of what American "Legitimacy" around the world was (in terms of dialogue with leaders the Bush might've called the "Axis of Evil" or something) and to implement his idea of an American utopia, where everyone had (among other things) a home to live in, enough to eat, free medical care and the right to do as you pleased...whether or not you had a job or the means to do so. I think he was sidetracked by reality on the military/geodiplomatic side, and sidetracked by poor decision-making fiscally on the other.
I'd submit that either winning the wars or not wasting time and money on them should be on that list somewhere. Maybe it's encapsulated in your #3.
I disagree about the real estate market. Due to a number of reasons, the market puffed itself up beyond sanity and now it is self correcting. The process may take another 5 years or so, but it is best to leave it alone and find its own ballast.
He gave vast sums to the banks so they could buy other banks and all the foreclosures created a glut of way under market properties. It's his doing, so I figure he should be working on saving the investments of the average Joe who has been paying his payments on time and whose equity was counted on for retirement. Not only is he intent on taxing income, he's effectively taxed peoples' life savings.
Considering you didn't answer the OP's question, yes. Going off-topic to say that Obama hasn't kept his promises and that the stimulus was bad does seem agenda-driven. He asked for two important agenda items (that is, policy items Obama would/should like to accomplish over the next 18 months or so), not for two key questions to ask Obama if you were granted an interview. As for agenda items that would probably be important for Obama, I think either defusing the situation with Pakistan or else severing ties with them will be pretty important and selling his budget plans to the American public will probably be the most important thing for him.
I'd say: 1. Deal with the Pakistan issue (it's a pretty clear, if complicated, problem). 2. Defend/sell the health care reform package that he signed into law (if he can't do this, or if "Obamacare" is disliked, then it hurts his reelection chances even if the laws stay on the books). Ed O.
1. Major Middle East retrenching. Get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Focus our foreign policy in the region on replicating Egypt and Tunisia instead of Saudi Arabia. Value democratic evolution more than oil. 2. Pass long-term budget legislation that puts us on a sensible long-term course, but doesn't threaten his new health care program or the basic principles of Medicare. That alone seems like quite a plateful.
I can't see how one can reconcile the two parts of your #2. Leaving the basic principles of today's Medicare in place, while not threatening any part of his new health care program, cannot put us on a "sensible long-term course" With a $600B SS/M/M overrun, and a cost of about $250B/yr for the "gross cost of coverage" for ObamaCare (2013-2023), and $164B on interest on the national debt (2010 totals) while taking in about $1.1T in taxes to pay for it....you have $100B to pay for every other federal program. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. And the interest isn't going down anytime soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
1. ObamaCare. There is nothing more important to this Administration than their signature legislation. They haven't been able to sell it yet, but they have no choice but to keep trying. 2. Defining the relationship between society and government. Historically, this country had settled into the Federal Government taking roughly 18% of GDP. This Administration is pushing an agenda that would up that percentage to 25% and even 30% (once insurance companies are priced out of offering health care and the government is "forced" to create a single payer system, which is how the current legislation is designed). This Administration has to remodel the traditional relationship between the citizenry and the government to more of a Western European model. If they lose that debate, a second term is going to be difficult to obtain.
