As with many things I read, it is what I disagree with that starts me stewing over why I think the author has concluded something incorrectly.  Take, for instance, Scot Lehigh's article in the Boston Globe posted earlier today (ironically titled "Obama's success rests in the truth").  Mr. Lehigh's advice to Obama, after saying there is already plenty to go around (presumably in advance of the November butt-kicking his ilk are in for), is that Obama needs to refine his message around 3 points:

1 - government, in times of economic crisis, needs to kick into action.  Because the economy was so bad, government had no choice but to act. 

2 - Obama's spending was not structural, but "one-time" in nature

3 - Bush's tax cuts are to blame for 1/2 (by his "credible" estimates reference) the budget problem

He concludes with a quote from Ronald Reagan, of all people:  "Some diehards are now declaring the present recession was caused by our program. May I just point out — we had the recession before we got the program.’’

My response to these 3 points are below, but let me start by stating the MAIN difference between Reagan's approach and Obama's approach renders Reagan's quote far less relevant in this context.  While Reagan's quote was 18 months into his presidency, it clearly is a response to criticism he received for his economic program.  For Obama, blaming Bush is his strategy, not his response.  Blaming Bush is written all over his offensive playbook, not his defensive one (apologies for the football analogy - college football started a week ago so it's on the brain).  That's the key difference.  Obama is travelling all over the country blaming Bush rather than taking any substantive, or structural, actions to address the economic or deficit mess.  I might add that even Lehigh's talking points don't even attempt to highlight some of Obama's "accomplishments" such as passing health care, which was supposed to reduce the deficit.  Unfortunately, it structurally increases the deficit, not lowers it, weakening Lehigh's second argument above.

Here is my inputs on Lehigh's advice:

1 - I don't disagree that government, at some level is and should be counter-cyclical.  Whether it's tax cuts to individuals, businesses, etc. to lower their costs, or spending on programs to spur economic activity (which I believe is a dubious assumption, but that's a post for a different day), government, at times, has to take action to help restore stability to and confidence in the economy.  HOWEVER, whether it's done at the time (preferably) or a plan is proposed for later balancing, it is simply irresponsible for government to spend money it doesn't have with no intention of paying it back.  I believe this is the crux of the entire tea party movement that the left is entirely missing.  I'm not a tea party activist but I believe much of the movement can be summarized in 3 simply words - PAY FOR IT.  Obama spent money on questionable projects and his counterbalance to spending that money was to sign Americans up to spend more for health care.  This, alone, explains some of the current feeling against the direction of the country. 

2 - Government ownership of GM is not one-time spending.  The implications of the health care legislation is not one-time spending.  These are structural changes.  Some states have planned increases to state workers - this is not one time spending.  These raise the floor permanently for spending levels.  There is no doubt that some of the spending was one time - like the $250 check to all Social Security recipients, in lieu of their COLA, but all that was done there was bridge a gap that, by law, inflation created to keep some balance in the system.  So even if some of the spending was "one-time," it's disingenuous at a minimum to suggest that this one time spending did much good from the perspective of economic growth (spending to get a greater return later on).  Some of these gestures, with other people's money, was pure and simple pandering and had nothing to do with economic stimulus. 

3 - Stating that the Bush tax cuts make up 1/2 of the debt according to "some" is just plain weak.  Anybody can find some piece of data to prove their point.  The alarming rise in the current deficit is due to Obama's massive stimulus spending, plus lower tax revenue due to a weak economy.  There's no doubt that tax cuts without associated program cuts will leave a deficit, something that conservatives disliked about Bush even when he was in office.  But trying to gloss over his own spending (which was Lehigh's first argument - that the spending needed to happen) and blame it on Bush's tax cuts is missing the larger point.  If Obama was concerned about the impact of the Bush tax cuts, then he had the ability - with both houses of Congress - to end them early if he chose to.  But, for nearly 2 years, they remained on the books.

When my 9 year old son refuses to accept responsibility, or find excuses for his behavior - large or small - he is reminded that, while some things do legitimately, but unfortunately, work against you sometimes, what you are in control of is your response to them.  Unfortunately for the country, my 9 year old is much further along in maturing and learning that lesson than is our President and his apologists.