Because he allowed the democrats to reverse welfare reform

Pres. Barack Obama vowed to correct the mistakes of the Bush administration but instead is determined to undo one of the great successes of the Clinton years: welfare reform. Democrats have inserted provisions into the catch-all stimulus bill that will reverse Clinton-era welfare reform, re-establishing the wasteful, incentive-killing system whose transformation was the bipartisan pride of the 1990s.

Prior to reform, the federal government simply gave the states more money for every family they added to the welfare rolls. The predictable result was that the states worked hard to maximize their welfare caseloads in order to maximize the amount of federal funding they could therefore claim. The system had zero incentive to help people make the transition from welfare to work and independence—in fact, the states were financially punished for doing so. The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/

Because he doesn't understand that tax cuts increase federal revenue

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Because against all evidence, he thinks CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Please try and bear with me - here's an example of actual research, vs simply buying whatever the talking heads and Al Gore are telling you in your home theater.

"earth's current temperature is no higher now (and maybe just a tad less, in fact) than it was during the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), when (just as at the "beginning of the end" of the LIA) there was over 100 ppm less CO2 in the air than there is today. Consequently, since the great MWP-to-LIA cooling occurred without any significant change in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration, just the opposite could occur just as easily, and the planet could warm, and by an equal amount -- just as it actually did over the past three centuries -- all without any help from an increase in the atmosphere's CO2 content, which remained essentially constant for the first 1850 years of the 2000-year record depicted in the figure above, and which did not begin to really take off until just the last few decades of the 20th century, which brief period of correlation is simply too short to use as justification for claiming that the late 20th-century CO2 increase was responsible for the late 20th-century warming of the globe, and especially since that warming actually ceased at the end of the 20th century, even though the atmosphere's CO2 content has subsequently continued to climb at an unprecedented rate and to ever greater heights."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N10/EDIT.php

Because he doesn't think Britain is an important ally.

Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.

Mr Obama rang Mr Brown as he flew home, in what many suspected was an attempt to make amends.

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Because he's already broken his promise to fight pork.

"WASHINGTON – Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election.

Arizona Sen. John McCain said it is "insulting to the American people" for Obama's budget director to indicate over the weekend that the president will sign a $410 billion spending bill with what Republicans critics say is nearly $5.5 billion in so-called "earmark" projects.

"So much for the promise of change," McCain said in this year's version of what has become his annual tirade against pork-barrel spending."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_co/obama_spending_5

Because he thinks the New Deal worked the first time

This article speaks the truth so well, I had to link to it twice:

"I will finish with a quotation from Roosevelt's secretary of treasury, Henry Morganthau. He admits, the whole thing failed. Again, the quote, you will never see in a textbook, but I have it right here. I went to the Roosevelt Library and dug this one out. Henry Morganthau, Secretary of Treasury, in May, 1939, years after the New Deal, said, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot." That is the secretary of treasury in charge of the money disbursement and statistics collection during the 1930s, making that statement."

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/summer_2002_3.html

Because he doesn't understand the broken window fallacy.

Let's say that we have a nice suburban area sort of like we have here in Washington, DC, out in Chevy Chase. And we have some guy there who has a nice picture window, and some kid goes by, a hoodlum, and throws a rock through that window, breaks it. And let's say that it costs $500 to replace that window. Well, our first reaction might be: What a horrible thing. Let's catch the perpetrator." But what if somebody else came up and said, "Wait a minute. The window's been broken, some time has elapsed, we haven't caught the guy, but maybe we shouldn't catch him to throw him in jail. Maybe we should catch him to pat him on the back. Because I've observed what's happened in that house and what's happened is this: He broke the window, but the guy who had the window broken called up the glassmaker and the glassmaker put the window in and installed it for $500. Then the glassmaker took that $500 and bought a DVD player. He also bought a couple DVDs. And then he bought a reclining chair to sit back and watch the movies, all with that $500. So that broken window has generated business and now we have more DVD sales, more reclining chair sales, and it's generated business all around town. So isn't this a good thing?"

Where's the problem with this argument? The valid point here is that the guy whose window was broken also might have wanted to buy a DVD player and a reclining chair. Or he might have wanted to buy a suit of clothes and some insurance. So that guy, and the tailor, is out $500 because instead of buying a suit and a shirt, he now had to pay for the window. You never generated real business because the guy who had the window broken is out $500 and the guy who had replaced the window is up $500, but the guy who had the window broken would have also been spending $500. So there's really no net gain. Hazlitt called this the broken window fallacy.

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/summer_2002_3.html