Let me be the first to predict that this is going to be a disaster of New Coke proportions. I can only hope that when Amanpour implodes, the higher-ups at ABC will come to their senses and turn back to Tapper.

Seriously, do you want to watch this for an hour every Sunday?

Yesterday, Gallup reported some poll numbers that should worry Administration officials. Although his personal approval rating remains high (67% approve; 32% disapprove), his support on specific issues is waning—particularly on budget issues. Americans disapprove of his handling of the federal budget deficit by 48% t0 46%. And a majority disapproves of his control of federal spending by 51% to 45%.

Fast-forward 24 hours. Today, President Obama announced that he wants to re-implement the “pay as you go” or “PayGo” rules for Congress. The idea is that if Congress is going to start a new program or cut taxes, they have to “pay” for the new initiatives by cutting the budget somewhere else.

Pause for a moment. First, it should be obvious that today’s announcement was a direct and proximate result of yesterday’s deteriorating poll numbers. In fact, it is widely rumored that the White House has a staff meeting every evening at 6:00 pm to go over that day’s polls and plan the “message” for the next day. I’m sure this announcement was cooked up at that meeting. Second, it should be equally obvious that PayGo is a rather modest budget proposal. Even if the PayGo rules are observed scrupulously (and they never are) at best they produce budgetary stasis. PayGo does nothing to lower the current deficit or debt.

Okay, so far these are just venial sins. The problem comes when you read the fine print on Obama’s proposal. It seems that Obama’s version of PayGo contains a few loopholes. From Jake Tapper:

The PAYGO rules will apply to new tax cuts and mandatory spending, with four major exemptions – any renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the continued efforts to “patch” the Alternative Minimum Tax, any effort to address physician’s payments in Medicare, and modifying the estate tax.

In addition, discretionary spending – roughly 40% of the federal budget – is not covered by PAYGO.

“This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor,” said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). “Exempting these measures from PAYGO would increase the ten-year deficit by over $2.5 trillion dollars. That’s not fiscal responsibility.”

Hmmm . . . remind you of anything? Sorta sounds like Obama’s no-lobbyists-in-the-administration policy. The one where he appoints as many lobbyists as he wants, but simply grants them “waivers” from the policy before they’re hired. The same tactics are at work here. The President announces a policy that sounds appealing, but includes enough loopholes to drive a truck through so that he can, ultimately, do whatever he wants.

I have no doubt this will help with his declining poll numbers in the short run, but eventually these tactics have to catch up to him. Or so I hope.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has decided that she doesn’t like the word “terrorism.” Instead, according to Newsmax, she prefers the term “man-caused disaster”:

Instead of referring to threats from terrorists, Janet Napolitano is referring in her speeches to “man-caused disasters.” In an interview, a reporter for Germany’s Spiegel Online asked Napolitano whether her avoidance of the term terrorism means that “Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose[es] a threat to your country?”

“Of course it does,” Napolitano replied. “I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

When I first heard about this from a friend, I honest-to-God thought it was a joke. I kept laughing while my friend kept saying, “No joke. No joke.” He finally had to send me the link because I didn’t believe him.

But it gets worse. This comes just a few days after President Obama compared AIG executives to suicide bombers (via the great Jake Tapper):

At his town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., Wednesday evening, President Obama compared embattled insurer AIG and other large failing banks to a suicide bomber . . .

“Here’s the problem,” Mr. Obama said, “It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger.  You don’t want them to blow up.  But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”

Besides the obvious problems with that analogy—obvious, that is, to everyone who didn’t sit through the “America’s chickens have come home to roost” sermon on the Sunday after 9/11—is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand how suicide bombers work. They don’t use a button to detonate the bomb. If they did, all you would have to do is shoot them in the head—a tactic that would be much more effective than “kind of talking to them.” Instead, they use a “dead man’s switch.” If you kill them, their finger falls off of the switch and the bomb detonates automatically.

So, just to review, this story combines political correctness run amuck, scapegoat politics, and tactical naiveté all rolled into one. Luckily, TOTUS has a more lighthearted take on the story.

No point deductions for The One today (I feel a big one coming the next day or two)–just an update to yesterday’s post about Obama’s Caterpillar fib.

Jake Tapper, not content to have simply embarrassed the administration yesterday, decided to rub their nose in it today. Check out this transcript of Tapper and Gibbs discussing it. Who do you think gets the better of the argument? 

I think it’s time to start taking bets on when Gibbs gets replaced. I predict Gibbs gets Daschled by St. Patty’s Day.

This should come as no surprise.

Yesterday, President Obama claimed that the CEO of Caterpillar had promised to rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs the company announced last month if the porkulus bill is passed. He repeated the same claim today.

The problem is, it’s a lie.

Jake Tapper of ABC reports that the CEO was asked today whether the legislation would stop the layoffs, and responded: “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”

Thank God for Jake Tapper. He’s one of the few mainstream media figures that is treating the new administration with appropriate journalistic skepticism (i.e., he hasn’t openly drunk the Koolaid). Check out this now-legendary exchange with Robert Gibbs from last week:

Two thumbs way, way up for Jake Tapper for keeping them honest.