Report Card for the Obama Administration







st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
{mso-style-name:”Table Grid”;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;

/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
{mso-style-name:”Table Grid”;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;

Washington, D.C.,
January 20, 2010—One year ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as
President of the United
States. Since then, he and his appointees
have had the opportunity to begin implementing their policy agenda, with
notable results throughout the federal government’s departments and agencies.
The analysts of the Competitive Enterprise Institute have assessed the
administration’s first-year performance and assigned grades accordingly. 



White House (overall) ― Barack Obama, President




Grader: Fred L.
Smith, Jr., President


Americans rallied behind President Obama’s message of
hope and change, giving this administration a wonderful opportunity to
reframe the debate about an array of issues in America—entitlements, environmental
policy, health care, and the roles of the federal and state
governments. Americans, not wedded to either the Democrats or the
Republicans, were ready for a reappraisal, a rebalancing of the powers of the
people and the politicians. He blew it. Despite being elected by moderates
and independents, this administration adopted the most statist agenda and
created the most bloated bureaucracy in America’s history. By
championing further politicization of an already overly politicized America,
there have been rapid drops in Obama’s credibility and popularity.

Americans are dropping out of his Long March toward
Socialism. Obama could have adopted a “Nixon in China” policy, working
with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to rebalance private and
political frontiers, encouraging greater private involvement in education,
allowing private property a role in the environmental field, taking on the
non-sustainable entitlement programs already threatening the survival of
Europe, reducing the regulatory and tax burdens on entrepreneurial
creativity, and moving away from the neo-conservative “nation building”
crusade of his predecessor.  Unfortunately, he has not. He could
have been—and, if he reshapes his course quickly enough, might still become—a
great president. But, in this first year of his presidency, he has
disappointed. The performance of the White House to date merits only a




Department of Agriculture ― Tom Vilsack,




Grader: Frances
B. Smith, Adjunct Fellow


In a February 24, 2009,
address to Congress, President Obama promised the American people that his administration
would be taking a hard look at farm support. “In this budget,” he said, “we
will . . . end direct payments of large agribusinesses that don’t need them.”
However, reality wasn’t consistent with that rhetoric, as the U.S. Department
of Agriculture estimates that direct government payments would total $12.5
billion in 2009, a 2-percent increase over 2008. Agricultural policy in the
Obama administration has also continued and expanded massive agricultural
subsidies, with new “green” subsidies for ethanol production. In addition,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 gave USDA nearly $28
billion in funding, which together with guaranteed loan programs represents
nearly $52 billion in new program funding.  The Obama administration has
also refused to touch special interest programs that benefit wealthy farmers
at the expense of consumers—for example, the
USDA decided not to increase import quotas for sugar, which restrict the
amount of sugar available for sugar users and consumers. And, despite World
Trade Organization rulings against U.S.
cotton subsidies, no U.S.
action has been taken to change that program.




Consumer Product Safety
Commission ― Inez Moore Tenenbaum, Chairman




Grader: Angela Logomasini,
Director of Risk and Environmental Policy


The CPSC gets a D for its management of perhaps the most significant
item on the Consumer Product Safety Commission agenda for 2009: the
implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(CPSIA).  It regulates lead and certain
chemicals in toys.  Never mind the fact
that the trace levels are too low to pose a health risk, this draconian law
is putting small businesses out of commission and forcing charities to toss
old books, toys, and other items. Small businesses and others have been fighting
this unreasonable and impractical law since its inception.  But CPSC has made things even more
difficult than necessary by refusing to apply any flexibility built into the

Commissioner Ann Northup, one of the few voices of reason at CPSC, noted
recently in the Wall Street Journal:  “For the past several months, American
businesses have been caught in the middle of a classic standoff between the
federal commissioners in the majority, who argue that the statute ties their
hands, and members of Congress, who claim they wrote flexibility into the law
and blame the commission for any harsh consequences. Although the commission
steadfastly refused to reach out to Congress to seek clarifications to the
law, Congress has now reached out to us—asking the agency last week for a
list of recommendations to amend the statute. 
Thankfully the commission responded, in part, by agreeing to extend
the stay on testing and certification for lead content. This window gives
Congress time to consider such common-sense changes…” The commission gets a
few points for having at least extended one compliance deadline to allow time
for reform, but it could have taken more opportunities to apply some reason
to the application of the law.




Department of Energy ― Steven Chu, Secretary




Grader: Iain
Murray, Vice President for Strategy


The mission of the
Department of Energy has historically been one of ensuring that America
has the power to meet its economic needs. Unfortunately, under Secretary
Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, the Department has apparently
decided that America’s
economy is too big and needs to be scaled back. It has taken a decision
to frown upon traditional sources of energy, generated from fossil fuels, and
discouraged their further development. Alternative sources of energy,
which cannot possibly meet America’s
needs in the short-to-medium term, are instead encouraged with massive
taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some noises have been made about nuclear
energy, but it remains the red-headed stepchild of energy policy. The
result will likely be a continuing degradation of America’s energy infrastructure
which will almost certainly result in its failure to meet economic needs
should the nation begin to climb out of the current recession, with the likelihood
of a stalled recovery. For its failure to appreciate exactly what it is
supposed to be there for, the Obama administration’s Department of Energy
gets a resounding F.




Environmental Protection Agency – Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator




Grader: Myron
Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming


EPA flunked on April 16, 2009,
when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson found that greenhouse gas emissions
endanger public health and welfare, and therefore must be regulated under the
Clean Air Act. This endangerment finding came after an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking begun during the Bush administration in July 2008 that
resulted in numerous substantive expert comments that show clearly that the
finding is unwarranted scientifically, that the Clean Air Act is entirely
unsuitable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and that using it to do
so would create a regulatory nightmare and do enormous economic damage.
Administrator Jackson
admitted that the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions, but went ahead and made the finding anyway.

In addition, EPA has moved aggressively to stop coal production in Appalachia by intervening in mine-permitting decisions
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA has even demanded that the Corps
revoke permits for new mines that have already been granted. The grounds upon
which the EPA is attempting to stop coal mining are utterly ridiculous.




Federal Communications Commission – Julius Genachowski, Chairman




Grader: Ryan
Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies


Radio and television stations, Internet service
providers, and even wireless phone companies are all regulated by the United
States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This agency is tasked with
governing the nation’s airwaves and making available communications services
to the residents of the United

Technological evolution has spurred fundamental
changes in the way we communicate over the last couple of decades. Consumers
nowadays enjoy more information and entertainment sources than ever before,
and the notion of scarcity in communications has yielded to a world of
abundance. Consequently, the FCC’s proper role has grown smaller and smaller.

Like most modern bureaucracies, however, the FCC has
maneuvered in recent years to interject itself in market processes in order
to preserve the agency’s relevance in the face of a rapidly changing
communications landscape. Most recently, the FCC has proposed imposing net
neutrality rules that would limit how Internet providers can manage their
networks in the name of protecting consumers. But these rules threaten to
constrain tomorrow’s innovative business arrangements—arrangements which
today’s shortsighted regulators simply cannot foresee.

The FCC also made headlines in the fall of 2009 when
it launched an investigation into wireless industry practices. AT&T, the
nation’s second largest wireless carrier, and Apple, the maker of the iPhone,
were at the center of the controversy. Naturally, the FCC claimed its actions
were aimed at protecting consumers. In fact, the looming scepter of
regulatory intervention in the wireless market—a market which is highly
innovative and competitive, according to objective measures—causes firms to
retreat, stifling innovation and making consumers worse off.

On the other hand, the FCC has publicly acknowledged
the need for expanding the pool of spectrum available to the marketplace.
Spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile communications, but government controls
giant swaths of this resource. The FCC has streamlined the process of
deploying wireless services, which has helped ensure that wireless carriers
are able to meet escalating demand for mobile data service. But the
Commission still has a long ways to go if it’s to enable American enterprise
to realize the full potential of the spectrum.




Federal Trade Commission – Jon Leibowitz,




Grader: Michelle
Minton, Policy Analyst


The purpose of the Federal
Trade Commission is, ostensibly, to protect consumers and encourage
competition in the marketplace. However, over the last year the FTC and the
Obama administration have initiated or endorsed actions that display an
increasingly interventionist intent and that would resoundingly impede
competition and threaten the liberty of individual consumers. Congress
initiated plans to repeal portions of the McCarran-Ferguson act,
ending the long-standing antitrust exemption for health insurers. This
proposal, endorsed by President Obama, would do nothing to reduce the costs
of health insurance and would more than likely result in increased costs and
market consolidation. The “collusion” practiced by health insurers actually
allows them (especially small insurance companies) to share information and
rate-setting standards for more accurate premium calculations. Setting
accurate risk-based rates is fundamental to an insurer’s ability to charge
adequate rates that are neither too little or too much. States already have
the power to regulate antitrust in the insurance industry so the result of
repealing the antitrust exemption would most likely be insurance companies
erring on the side of caution by reducing market cooperation, a reduction in
premium rate accuracy and thus an increase in the costs of writing insurance.

Additionally, the FTC filed an
antitrust suit against Intel, the leading manufacturer of microprocessors,
alleging that the company violated federal laws by engaging in exclusionary
business practices. In reality, Intel has been able to achieve its success
due to constant innovation as a result of a vibrant and competitive market.
The application of antitrust laws will only retard what is an otherwise
dynamic market. There is no evidence that Intel’s market success has harmed
consumers in any way. Lastly, and most disturbingly, the FTC issued new rules
which went into effect December 1, 2009, that would make the average blogger
liable for civil penalties for false claims about products or failure to
disclose material connections between the reviewer and the marketer of a product
or service. This raises serious concerns about the scope of the FTC’s powers
and its ability and willingness to hamper individuals’ freedom of speech. For
this and the previously mentioned offenses the FTC receives an unequivocal F.




Food and Drug Administration – Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner




Grader: Gregory
Conko, Senior Fellow


The Obama administration’s Food and Drug
Administration had a sub-par performance in 2009.  The agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research approved just 24 new drugs and biotech medicines last year—roughly
on par with its performance in the final year of the Bush administration, but
well below recent highs of 53 in 1996 and 39 in 1997.  In other areas, the FDA’s new leadership
has taken a “get tough” attitude with manufacturers that will do nothing to
improve safety, but could deprive consumers of useful products and
information.  For example, in April,
the agency informed drug manufacturers that their use of “sponsored link” ads
on search engines such as Google and Yahoo! were unlawful because the
70-character links did not present the same encyclopedic risk information
required of conventional print advertisements—even though the links directed
users to a page containing the full risk disclosure.

In May, the FDA issued a warning letter to General
Mills that labels on boxes of Cheerios indicating that consumers could lower
their cholesterol by eating the whole grain cereal turned the product from a
food into a medical drug.  And, in July,
Principle Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein recommended imposing strict
limits on the use of certain antibiotics in livestock production.  The appointment of so-called consumer
advocates such as Sharfstein and Assistant Commissioner for Policy Peter
Lurie suggest one reason why the new FDA leadership has been taking a
needlessly antagonistic regulatory approach. 
Similarly, the appointment of Ralph Tyler, an attorney with no food
and drug law experience, to serve as FDA chief counsel, bodes poorly for
consumers and manufacturers alike.




Immigration and Customs Enforcement – John T. Morton, Assistant Secretary


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Alejandro Mayorkas, Director




Grader: Alex
Nowrasteh, Policy Analyst


Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) receive an F for enforcing America’s self-destructive
immigration policies. ICE and USCIS have the impossible task of
separating immigrants from economic opportunity, and have failed spectacularly. The
cost per apprehension of illegal immigrant on the border is up by 1,041
percent since 1992, and the number of illegal immigrants only seems to dip in
response to recessions. When our immigration laws are confronted with
the economic realities of mass immigration, ICE and USCIS end up with egg on
their faces and taxpayers with a hole in their pockets.   




Department of Interior – Ken Salazar, Secretary




Grader: R.J.
Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar


Unfortunately, Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar and the host of environmentalists who have filled key
slots appear determined to continue to expand the amount of federal land
ownership through the acquisition (and regulation) of private lands—supporting the creation of ever more National Parks,
National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, National Heritage Areas,
National Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. With the poor record of stewardship
on so many of the federal lands, one would hope for some demonstrated ability
to care for what they already have, in place of endless acquisition as a
seeming end in itself.

And while DOI
is reducing private land ownership, it is also locking up millions of
additional acres of existing federal lands in Wilderness Areas, which
can never be used and most of which have never even been inventoried for
their potential contributions to national survival.  Additionally
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of listing more and
more species of plants and animals as threatened or endangered regardless of
the facts as well as designating ever-larger critical habitats for listed
species. DOI is supporting efforts of environmentalists to not only
close areas of known fossil fuel deposits to exploration and development, but
is also opposing the creation of alternative wind and solar energy farms
because they might impact endangered species and their habitat—or harm “viewsheds” —thus
making doubly sure that America has neither non-renewable nor renewable
energy supplies for the future. Such policies harm the land, the
resources, the wildlife and the American people. How could one do worse?




Department of Justice – Eric Holder, Attorney General




Grader: Hans
Bader, Senior Attorney


The Justice Department is
deeply politicized, putting partisanship before its legal responsibilities
and the Constitution. It has failed to enforce federal voting rights laws
like UOCAVA that protect the right of military service members to vote,
resulting in many of them receiving absentee ballots to late to vote in close
congressional races, like the special election for New York’s 20th
congressional district.  The obvious result of this is to put critics of
the administration, who are disproportionately backed by military voters, at
a disadvantage in every election.  It dropped a voter-intimidation case
after career justice department had already won the case and obtained a
default judgment, shielding from punishment an Obama poll watcher and Philadelphia democratic
official who used a nightstick and racial epithets to intimidate voters, and
who belonged to the anti-Semitic, racist New Black Panther Party.  It
then thumbed its nose at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, by refusing to
comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission in its investigation of the administration’s
actions.  It overturned a legal opinion by David Baron, a liberal
Justice Department attorney hired under the Obama administration, when he had
the temerity to point out the inconvenient truth that giving D.C. a congressman,
as Obama advocates, would violate the Constitution. 

The Justice Department has
expanded the use of Miranda Warnings in Afghanistan —even though they are not constitutionally required and
impede investigators.  Yet it argues in court briefs that detainees
subjected to torture have no redress under the U.S. Constitution.  It is
eroding civil liberties by re-prosecuting in federal court teenagers
acquitted of a hate crime in state court, even though testimony in the state
case supported the jury’s not-guilty verdict by pointing to a different
culprit.  It failed to take steps to cut off funds to ACORN, a political
ally of the President, despite ACORN’s being caught on video promoting
mortgage fraud and other criminal activity, and the existence for years of
federal statutes debarring contractors who engage in fraud. 




Department of Labor – Hilda L. Solis, Secretary




Grader: Ivan
Osorio, Editorial Director


Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis gets a low grade for
shifting the focus of the Department of Labor to run once again as if it
were the Department of Organized Labor. Since taking office, she has
worked with union bosses to promote organized labor’s agenda, including
undermining efforts to improve union financial disclosure. However, one
mitigating factor is the fact that the department’s searchable database for
union LM-2 reports remains online (the database was made available online
by Solis’s predecessor, Elaine Chao). 




Office of Management and Budget – Peter Orszag, Director




Grader: Ryan
Young, Journalism Fellow


Spending and deficits are
far higher than under President George W. Bush, himself a big spender. But
Obama can’t be given all the blame. The bailout and stimulus spending
programs that caused much of the fresh red ink got their start under Bush. In
a potentially positive regulatory development, the number of pages in the
Federal Register decreased from 79,435 in 2008 to 69,676 in 2009. Of course,
the contents of those pages matters more than how many of them there are. And
on that front, the new administration is business as usual.




Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board – Daniel L. Goelzer, Acting




Grader: John
Berlau, Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs


The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, created
by Sarbanes-Oxley to implement its rules, gets an F. It has done nothing to
simplify the rules that Republicans and Democrats have called overly
burdensome to small public companies. And this year when bonuses in the
private sector were under so much scrutiny, the PCAOB raised the salary of
its chairman to almost $700,000 a year.

However, it is important to note that Obama cannot be
held accountable for any of the PCAOB’s actions, since the PCAOB’s
unconstitutional structure prevents the President from exercising any control
through either the appointment or removal process. Despite our disagreement
with the Obama administration, in a pending Supreme Court case, CEI has
argued for his and future administrations to have the necessary
constitutional controls over this agency so that they can be held politically
accountable for its actions, good or bad.




Securities and Exchange Commission – Mary L. Schapiro,




Grader: John
Berlau, Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs


The reason the SEC does not get an F is
because its Chairman Mary Schapiro, appointed by President Obama last year at
the beginning of his administration, has made going after major investor
fraud a key priority. She has brought on law enforcement experts and
shifted enforcement resources from trivial headline-grabbing investigations
such as the alleged backdating of stock options, which caused little harm to
shareholders’ bottom lines, into seeking out Madoff-like Ponzi schemes.
Contrary to press accounts, the SEC was not inactive during the Bush
administration, but focused on the wrong enforcement priorities. It threw the
book at Martha Stewart for trivial charges, but ignored warnings about Bernie
Madoff and other fraudsters (as the agency had also done with regard to
Madoff, to be fair, under the Clinton

However other actions of the Obama-Schapiro SEC have
greatly undermined shareholder well-being. Schapiro brought back the
widespread use of corporate penalties to punish shareholder fraud. But
penalties on the corporation, rather than individual bad actors in the
company, have the effect of punishing the very shareholders the fraud was
committed against. The money to pay the penalties is taken from
the corporate treasury, which ultimately belongs to the ordinary
shareholders of the company. Thus, shareholders end up being penalized twice
for the fraud: once when the corporate executives misuse a company’s money
and again when the corporate penalty further reduces the assets that belong
to all shareholders.

Schapiro also gets this bad grade for, over the
objection of the two Republican commissioners, overriding 150 years of state
corporate law to mandate that companies list shareholder nominees on the same
ballot with their own. These proposed “proxy access” rules would let special
interests with agendas and shares of stocks, such as union pension funds and
environmental groups, use the director nomination process as a wedge against
management to promote political agenda items that are contrary to the interests
of ordinary shareholders.

And Schapiro failed shareholders and entrepreneurs
when she refused to extend an exemption from the Sarbanes-Oxley “internal
control” auditing mandates to the very smallest public companies. At a time
when President Obama and Republicans are worries about small business growth
and the ability to create jobs, this will severely limit these companies
ability to grow. And Sarbanes-Oxley, despite costing the economy more than $1
trillion according to University of Minnesota economist Ivy Zhang, did
little for shareholders in preventing fraud in the subprime crisis.
This action may be mitigated by bipartisan actions in Congress to create a
permanent exemption for these smaller companies. This measure was inserted
into the financial regulation bill that passed the House in December, with
the Obama administration’s limited support. But it still needs to clear the
Senate. Schapiro should heed this bipartisan action and continue to
extend this exemption so vital for entrepreneurs and shareholders from
this law that was rushed through after Enron and signed by President Bush in




Department of Transportation – Ray LaHood, Secretary






Grader: Sam
Kazman, General Counsel



For proposing, in
conjunction with EPA, to raise vehicle fuel economy standards to even
greater levels, despite the overwhelming evidence that such standards kill
people by causing cars to be made smaller and lighter. Downsizing may
squeeze more mpgs out of a car, but it also reduces crashworthiness. When
passenger car standards were at 27.5 mpg several years ago, the National
Academy of Sciences estimated that they contributed to about 2,000 traffic
deaths per year.  As those standards are pushed up by DOT and EPA, that
death toll will only climb, with nary a peep out of the agency whose alleged
job is to promote traffic safety.




Department of Treasury – Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary




Grader: Wayne Crews, Vice President for Policy


In a libertarian world of civil rather than political society,
the Treasury Department would pay the modest bills of a constitutionally
limited government.  It’s true that Congress holds the purse strings;
but during an economic and financial crisis rooted in already-gargantuan
government that – despite the news reports – has regulated money, credit and
interest rates many decades, a sane Treasury’s vision for leadership and
recovery would rule out seducing Congress with yet more elaborate and larger
purses (with elastic seams besides). This Treasury Department has compounded
the “NASCAR” bailouts, helps inflate a silly “green energy” bubble, and
stands at the podium cheerleading the idea of regulating the private-sector
salaries among other priestly interventions in one formerly free endeavor
after another. But creating ficticious economies through political means
is nothing new; we’re experiencing the fruits of this key governmental
function now. I want to give Treasury an “F” for standing by as the 2009
deficit topped an incomprehensible $1.6 trillion last year amid this self-serving
orgy, a political spending phenomenon unrelated to the requirements of
economic recovery.

However, Treasury gets only a “D” because it inherited from
President Bush what was already the largest government on Planet Earth ($3
trillion) a behemoth it had few complaints about financing. We can argue
it ‘till the whiskey’s gone, but there’s no question that under President
Obama, Treasury has been instrumental in extending and “customizing” a
Stimulus to Nowhere already making a beeline for the cliff’s edge, and things
could have been otherwise. Federal interventions are so extensive that civil,
voluntary society as opposed to administered society may never quite recover
in this particular geographical area of the world during any of our

it insists upon doing more than keeping the books, to get an “A,” the U.S.
Treasury Department must take a leadership role in removing obstacles to
corporate and small business innovation like tax and capital gain
liberalization, and help expand economic deregulation on a massive
scale.  Apart from paying the government’s own light bill, Treasury’s
leadership is only valuable when it prioritizes wise and honest alternatives
to spending yet more stimulus money that it doesn’t have. It can take a lead
role in expanding ideas like privatization, liberalizing America’s network
industries like electricity and telecommunications (it will surprise few that
the latter is being newly regulated rather than deregulated), simplifying
taxes, explaining why a VAT is disastrous, and much more. The U.S.
federal government buys us far too much misery with the $4 trillion it now
spends annually; I almost wish it were more Machiavellian rather than just
crazy. Freedom and liberty cost less than this, America.



is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest group that studies the
intersection of regulation, risk, and markets.