Two years of Democratic rule: no budget, no deficit-reduction plan. Democrats and Obama talk about making tough choices, but can’t do it.”
July 26, 2011. I just finished listening to our Bloviator-in-Chief give his speech on the stalemate about the debt ceiling and the budget. Unbelievable.
Okay, so he disagreed with the spending policies of the day and loves his own spending policies. Regardless, the issue of the debt ceiling increase is the same, and the “failure of leadership” part of the statement is certainly correct.
And what of that? Not that the issue of blame is important to the solution, but let’s get some perspective. President Obama had two years of a heavily Democratic House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof Senate. Seldom in American history has a president had that type of luxury, yet he and the Dems failed to address the debt ceiling in a long term manner, and wouldn’t even so much as propose a budget. With two years of that kind of political advantage, it would have taken only modest leadership to address the budget and debt problems. Mediocre leadership could have gotten the job done. Practically no leadership, just diligence would have been enough.
Instead, they spent their huge political clout to jam through a health care bill that was immensely unpopular and spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on a “stimulus” that did little except stimulate the federal government. They kicked the budget and deficit cans so far down the road that the new electric cars would run out of battery power before they could find them.
Yes, they could have passed a budget and a deficit-reduction bill to their liking. That is, of course, if they wanted to. But they didn’t. Why? Democrats will not make the “tough choices.” It would have been politically problematic for a Democrat to suggest cutting anything. Talk about political cowards – they set the standard for political cowardice that may never again be achieved. Dems knew (and still do know) there is a budget deficit problem. Well, not entirely true. Some appear too ignorant or stupid. But most do understand. However, to suggest cutting spending anywhere is something they don’t like to do. So they don’t. They prefer the can.
Two years, no budget. Two years, no debt reduction plan. Two years, no leadership. Unbelievable. Of course, Obama did submit a budget plan to the Senate. It was rejected 69-0. Not impressive.
But, wait! Just in the bleakest, darkest moment, a light appears at the end of the tunnel. Republicans control the house! They will suggest cuts, and we can moan and groan about how their proposals hurt poor people and the middle class (boy is that a joke). We can champion the working man and vilify the wealthy. We can proclaim to be on the side of the average American and let the Republicans do the dirty work.
Here’s the plan. Let the GOP suggest cuts – it doesn’t matter how much – for anything they want. Then we can scream like hell, get the cuts reduced, and appear as saviors for “saving what we could” from the heartless Republican machine. They get the blame, we get the credit.
Think I’m wrong? Just name a spending cut the Dems have suggested. And I don’t mean phony things like “We will negotiate savings for drugs in the Medicare program” or we will “cut the fraud out of Medicare.” That’s nice, but totally ridiculous. Dems have been in power two years now and they are still talking about cutting the fraud from Medicare. Why haven’t they done that yet? Because they can’t. Calling that out as a cut in spending is similar to expecting your sister to drop in on your home in California when she is on her way from London to Paris. Ain’t gonna happen Barry!
Additionally, outside of the corporate jet owners, they will not propose cuts that appear to lighten any group’s federal funding. Just name one such proposal. Students? Nope. Unemployed? Not a chance. Welfare? Not on your life. And, of course, the EPA, Department of Energy and the Department of Education are off limits. So what have they suggested? Absolutely nothing.
And by the way: what is so radical about a balanced budget?
Obama asked that they come together and find common ground. Great idea. Both Dems and the GOP say they are in favor of cuts. That’s common ground. They disagree on taxes, therefore that is not common ground. So do the common ground thing and cut spending. Argue about the taxes later.
Another indication of Obama’s disingenuousness is his 2009 statement “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.” Why? Jobs. We can all debate exactly how many jobs are supported by keeping the tax cuts in place, but not if. He says employment is job one and increasing employment can only help us with our financial troubles, yet he wants to increase taxes. Why? “Fairness,” regardless of the consequences. (His version of fairness.)
Oh, and why does he insist on a long term solution? Because he doesn’t want this issue to rear it’s ugly head during the 2012 election campaign. He knows in the electorate’s view he is on the wrong side of this one. He also knows the American public has a short memory. He figures if he can get this tabled until after the election, he will have more time to defend his stimulus programs, health care program, bailout of GM and the UAW, and miserable foreign policy that has dramatically reduced our standing in the world. And this from a guy who has decried politics as usual.
Mercer Tyson StraightThinker.com