Do you ever pay attention to those “USA Today Snapshots?”

Michelle Healy and Keith Carter published one on April 22, 2009. The question? “What are the most important issues facing young adults?” Those ages 22-28 answered as follows:

• Making better money management decisions – 52%
• Strengthening family relationships – 18%
• Protecting the environment – 11%
• Balancing work and personal life – 10%

Did you see the number 1 answer?

You’re looking for your congressman’s address aren’t you? I hope so. Here’s a thought: cc the President on that.

I don’t often agree with the editorial stance taken by USA Today but I found myself marching in sync with them yesterday with their Monday column: “Our view on the federal budget: Obama, Congress go AWOL on fiscal responsibility.” It was truly a bipartisan viewpoint in that the editorial staff didn’t blame President Obama or Congress. No, they both have had a hand in this fiscal irresponsibility.

But if all the leadership gurus are right in declaring that “everything rises and falls on leadership,” then our President must take the lead in shouldering the “current” blame.

“When it comes to federal spending, there’s a pattern emerging with President Obama, and it’s not a flattering one. The president says all the right things about the importance of getting the deficit under control, but his actions don’t come close to matching his rhetoric.”

What happened to “change we can believe in?” What about the pledge to be the “save and invest president?” And if he went through the budget “line by line,” as he promised, I’m wondering what lines he missed.

There will be those who decry, “but he proposed $17B in cuts!” And as our esteemed leader proclaimed, “$17 billion is ‘real money.’” O.K., let’s put that in perspective.

“The president got it backward. Out in the rest of the world, $17 billion is a ton of money. But in Washington, where the president is proposing to spend $3.6 trillion next year, $17 billion looks puny — a little less than half a percent of the budget, or the equivalent of cutting a $100 grocery bill by handing back a 50-cent pack of gum.”

I also agree that,

“It’s disappointing that Obama’s repeated pledges to hunt line-by-line through the budget for excess spending didn’t produce more than this. Even George W. Bush, who never made a serious effort to balance the budget during his eight years in office, was more ambitious: He proposed $18 billion in similar cuts last year.”

Our President is not alone, however. Congress (the living antonym to “change”) continued their partisan ways. Republicans said the cuts weren’t enough while the Democrats proclaimed that they were too much. The whole discussion reminds one of a dog marking out his territory in the yard.

“This sort of reflexive parochialism leaves us deeply concerned about whether either party, or Congress as an institution, is capable of addressing the nation’s dire fiscal circumstances, which will only worsen as Baby Boomers hit retirement age.”

What perhaps is most disturbing is the continual game-playing done inside the beltway. It makes for entertaining talk radio and perhaps even riveting cable news shows. But let’s be realistic – they’re playing games with my future (and yours); they’re playing games with our children and grandchildren’s future. And that is simply not acceptable.

So who doesn’t get it?

I listened this past week to President Bush speak from the Roosevelt Room at the White House introducing his new nomination for President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick. As per usual practice, the introduction was full of the obligatory unending list of accomplishments and posts held along with the long-winded complimentary accolades for the new appointee.

In the process, however, our President also noted that the new appointee was replacing Paul Wolfowitz. That’s fine, I guess; we all knew for whom the replacement was being introduced. Where the apparent slipup occurred, however, was when the President emphasized that the person whom Zoellick was replacing (Mr. Wolfowitz) was a “person of integrity” and a “man of character.”

Hello? Did anyone read the remarks before they got to the Roosevelt Room? Did anyone remind President Bush that the reason he was introducing this new economic superstar was because the former World Bank President HAD to resign over the controversy of appointing his girl friend to a prominent post that brought with it a substantial and lucrative pay raise?

Please understand: I don’t know Paul Wolfowitz; he may in fact be everything President Bush said he is. But conventional wisdom would not normally link “integrity” and “character” with “political scandal.”

So who doesn’t get it? The President? Or his staff? And do they not get that this communication slip-up either points to incompetence on the part of the President and/or his staff, or at the very least a lack of credibility on the part of the Commander in Chief?

I sat in a meeting not long ago where a similar faux pas took place. The speaker went on eternally singing the praise of a specific individual. Yet a closer look at the available data would indicate that this “hero” had in fact fallen gloriously short on several occasions over the past several months causing incredible distress to individuals and families as well as more than a little disruption to numerous organizations.

I wonder if this speaker realized that when, like the President, he went on and on and on when at least some of those listening knew different, two things happened: One, his words suddenly took on a ring of hollowness and, two, his credibility was clearly brought into question.

So who doesn’t get it?