The politics of patronage abounds in Wash., D.C.

Beyond the high rhetoric of the 44th President of the United States, some interesting trends seem to be developing.

Bill Clinton’s famous dictum that “the age of big government is over” now seems as ancient as William Jennings Bryan’s “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” How quickly the eras pass in the current rush to re-forge the basic fabric of life in America. Unfortunately, one aspect of politics that President Barack Obama obviously intends to keep is the patronage trough, and there is considerable evidence afoot to support that view.

The $787 billion “stimulus” package enacted earlier this year has done little to stimulate the overall economy thus far. Jobs continue to disappear. Investors and business owners are reluctant to make major investment decisions due to uncertainty about the economy and fear of changes in tax policy and the regulatory environment.

The small portion of the “stimulus” money expended to date is, according to a recent article in USA Today, going overwhelmingly to the counties that supported Barack Obama for President – $69 per person in the counties Obama carried compared to $34 per person in the McCain counties.

The GM/Chrysler takeovers provide another example of how policy in the Obama presidency is tailored to patronage. The investors and institutions that held corporate bonds in the two companies were pressured to take a disproportionate share of the losses in equity so that the labor unions – along with the federal government – could get favored treatment when the assets were allocated.

The unions, of course, were big supporters of the president. Those onboard the train with the president get cigars and brandy. Those who were not shovel coal (until, of course, the Obama team bans the use of coal).

Speaking of unions, the Democratic majorities in Congress – with strong urging from President Obama – are in a mad rush to reshape health care policy in America.

The big question is: how do they come up with enough money to make a down payment on the huge entitlement they intend to create? One option is to tax employer-provided health care benefits as ordinary income. The labor unions don’t like that concept. One Senate version of the legislation would impose the tax on non-union workers but exclude union members from paying it.

The “punish your adversaries and reward your friends” motif in the health care legislation is mild compared to what is going on in the president’s other major initiative: climate change legislation. The House passage of “cap and trade” legislation designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was a textbook example of patronage gone wild.

If Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress wanted to be serious about greatly reducing carbon emissions, they should have put forward legislation that would make everyone suffer equally from the significantly higher energy costs that will result from carbon caps. But the political fallout from doing that was unacceptable. Their solution to the problem was to give away the right to emit carbon dioxide to their favored constituencies (farmers in Democrat-leaning states, ethanol producers, etc.) and stick it to other consumers (particularly in “Red” states) in the process.

President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress have a fairly clear path to adopt whatever policies they wish. They will get the credit – and the blame – for doing it. They can go about it acting as statesmen or ward bosses.

Thus far, they look more like henchmen in the Daley machine in Chicago than leaders who are trying to bring the nation together in an effort to make life better for our children and grandchildren.