WSJ Mauls President’s Speech
The president is not serious about deficit reduction because he doesn’t believe the harm they cause the economy. The Wall Street Journal takes him to task for his failure.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion....
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the “cost” of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year [emph. ad].
Jack:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
I agree that this president is not serious about deficit reduction, but come on, Scott, what president is (was)? I find it interesting that the debt and deficit are hot button issues to conservatives when a liberal is in charge.
On other topics, the same can be said about liberals when a conservative is in charge.
You need to quit sounding like you’re just following the ‘conservative talking points’ script.
14 April 2011, 11:50 amScott Kirwin:
Jack
You’re ignoring the fact that the deficit was a hot button issue when Bush was in charge. In fact Bush’s expansion of the government was the reason many conservatives sat out the 2006 election, which cost the Republican’s Congress. It’s also what contributed to the rise of the Tea Party and continues to separate the Tea Party from the traditional Republican base. The Right’s interest in deficit reduction is not as knee-jerk as you believe.
As for the talking points script… Meh. I don’t see deficits as being inherently bad. I wouldn’t support a balanced budget amendment because I think that a healthy federal government should always run a deficit.
What I have a problem with is the size of the deficit because it impacts me directly through the cost of gasoline (the deficit weakens the dollar which makes commodities priced in dollars rise in price) and in the threat of higher taxes. They matter to me because I live in a rural area and drive a lot. Medicaid/Medicare cuts required to lower the deficit will impact my wife’s salary because many of her patients are insured through those programs. Most doctors today are paid through “productivity” – and those programs pay much less than private insurance. The deficit is also causing higher inflation which affects my pocketbook since I’m in the phase of life where I consume almost as much as I earn. Things cost more or come in smaller packages so I end up paying more and receiving less.
Meanwhile the people who caused this mess are still in power. I’m getting ready to cut a nice fat check to the IRS which will be more taxes than GE paid this year. Is that a “conservative talking point”? Nope. It’s a progressive moveon.org one. The fact that the bankers behind the financial meltdown weren’t ruined, that they weren’t even fired let alone tarred and feathered galls me to know end. Is that a right wing or a left wing talking point?
The spending problem isn’t simply Obama’s fault. It’s the fault of an entire infrastructure that has been built around spending other people’s money. It’s the fault of American citizens who demand small government on one hand yet scream when their pet project or entitlement gets axed. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Where I fault Obama is his failure to lead. He has acted like a prime minister – as the head of his party – instead of as the president. He doesn’t seem interested in leading. He outsourced Afghanistan/Iraq to the Republican party, Obamacare to the Democrats, and Libya to NATO. He seems more interested in making history instead of managing it.
But in the end I can’t do anything about it. These problems are way bigger than I am and honestly, I don’t know how they are going to be solved. But I shouldn’t have to. That’s what leaders are supposed to be for – to lead, right? So far I’m not seeing much leading going on in either party – which is why I’m moving back towards becoming an independent again.
14 April 2011, 2:24 pmJack:
Scott,
I agree with everything in your comment. It is balanced and points out problems and hypocrisy from both sides of the fence. That’s what you should have written as an original post. I stand by my comment that your original post sounds like a conservative talking point.
Jack
14 April 2011, 4:51 pmScott Kirwin:
Jack
When you see me post something with little or no comment, it’s really just to serve as fodder for a future essay. I use this blog as my “memory” of sorts since the one I’ve got isn’t the best these days.
So I can see your point about the talking points.
But honestly, I’m so angry right now about how badly things are going in this country that it just hurts.
14 April 2011, 7:29 pmScott Kirwin:
Jack
Not to belabor the point but here’s another article that I want to save for future reference. I don’t necessarily agree that Obama will lose; at this point nothing would surprise me – even the words President of the United States Donald Trump…
Obama will Lose in 2012
14 April 2011, 8:42 pmRandom Blowhard:
Deficits don’t matter… until they do. Ask Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Spain…
28 April 2011, 2:45 amPrinting huge amounts of money out of thin air to support endless “spendulus” also does not matter… until it does. Ask Argentina, Zimbabwe, Wiemar Republic…